Flash Drive setup. - OS2

This is a discussion on Flash Drive setup. - OS2 ; tholen@antispam.ham wrote: > James J. Weinkam wrote: > >>> Well, as the various messages related to the processing of CONFIG.SYS >>> scrolled by, I did see reference to FAT32, and I do see CACHEF32.EXE >>> listed as one of the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Flash Drive setup.

  1. Re: Flash Drive setup.

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > James J. Weinkam wrote:
    >
    >>> Well, as the various messages related to the processing of CONFIG.SYS
    >>> scrolled by, I did see reference to FAT32, and I do see CACHEF32.EXE
    >>> listed as one of the running processes. However, I still get a SYS0026
    >>> when I connect a USB device with an SDHC card formatted with FAT32.
    >>> Unable to access the device. Meanwhile, Windows has no trouble
    >>> seeing the files. And OS/2 has no trouble seeing the files on an SD
    >>> card formatted with FAT16 when I swap that card for the SDHC card in
    >>> the same USB device. So it's not the device, but rather the SDHC card
    >>> and the way it's formatted, that is causing the problem. Any
    >>> suggestions?

    >
    >> The first time you access such a device you need to use DFSee or LVM to add lvm
    >> information and assign the drive letter on which the device is mounted.

    >
    > I don't understand. The removable device monitor tells me "The device
    > O: has
    > been attached !" and a drive O: shows up in the Drives folder, so it
    > appears that
    > the drive letter has already been assigned.


    At this point, start DFSee. Go to the Edit menu and choose Edit LVM information.
    Select the partition corresponding to your USB key. Set the drive letter to the one
    that the device was attached to, say x, or if you prefer, any other drive letter that
    you know will be available when you reinsert the device. Do not check the synchronize
    with live LVM engine box. Select OK or hit F4. Then exit from DFSee and open an OS/2
    command window run eject x: When the command prompt reappears remove and reinsert the
    USB key. When the Device z: has been attached message appears, where z is whatever
    drive letter you actually put in the LVM information, run chkdsk z: /f. You should
    now be able to access the "drive" in any of the usual ways. Once you are finished
    reading and writing to the device, don't forget to run the eject command before
    unplugging it.

    For removable media, devices that are formatted FAT16 do not require that the LVM
    DLAT area be filled in. Devices with other file systems cannot be oprated on unless
    the LVM engine finds correct information in the DLAT area. In my previous post I
    forgot to mention the necessity of ejecting and reinserting the device after
    christening it with LVM information.

    If you later insert the device when the drive letter specified in the LVM information
    is unavailable, it will be necessary to change the LVM information to an available
    drive letter, eject, reinsert, and chkdsk in order to use the device.


  2. Re: Flash Drive setup.

    Hi

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > Peter Brown wrote:
    >
    >>>> Why not do the obvious, and check

    >
    >>>> fdisk /query
    >>>>
    >>>> (assuming you are LVM-less, as any sane person should be)...
    >>>>
    >>>> Hope this helps,

    >
    >>> Suggesting that I'm insane is hardly helpful. Is it even possible to install
    >>> MCP2 without LVM?

    >
    >> Possibly... however, I do not think that the comment from Paul regarding
    >> sanity was aimed at yourself.

    >
    > I don't recall Paul making any comment regarding sanity. However,
    > Ilya
    > did indicate that any sane person should be LVM-less, and then went on
    > to say that he hoped his remarks helped.
    >
    >> As you do seem to be using lvm why not attach a usb fat32 drive and see
    >> what lvm reports.

    >
    > I don't have a USB FAT32 "drive". All my USB "drives" are either JFS
    > or
    > NTFS. I do have some USB FAT32 memory keys. Upon insertion, the
    > removable device monitor tells me that the device is attached, and a
    > drive
    > letter is assigned. A removable drive icon for that drive appears in
    > the
    > Drives folder. However, LVM doesn't show that drive letter in the
    > Logical
    > View, and in the Physical View that drive's space is listed as free
    > space.
    >



    That sounds like it requires lvm to create a volume before the drive can
    be used.


    >> My experience is that some, but not all, fat32 formatted flash drives
    >> seem to need a volume drive letter sorted by lvm before they can be
    >> used. This FAQ (included in the USBcfg package on hobbes) may be of
    >> interest/helphttp://www.os2voice.org/VNL/past_issues/VNL0606H/feature_2.html

    >
    > I'll take a closer look at it, but a quick glance suggests that it is
    > mainly
    > concerned with USB devices, and I'm not having any trouble with the
    > FAT16
    > USB devices. It's the FAT32 USB devices that are inaccessible.



    Exactly.

    Try the "Inaccessible FAT32 disks" page *if* lvm cannot create the
    required volume.

    Regards

    Pete

  3. Re: Flash Drive setup.

    James J. Weinkam wrote:

    >> I don't understand. *The removable device monitor tells me "The deviceO: has
    >> been attached !" and a drive O: shows up in the Drives folder, so it appears that
    >> the drive letter has already been assigned.


    > At this point, start DFSee. Go to the Edit menu and choose Edit LVM information.
    > Select the partition corresponding to your USB key. *Set the drive letter to the one
    > that the device was attached to, say x, or if you prefer, any other driveletter that
    > you know will be available when you reinsert the device. Do not check thesynchronize
    > with live LVM engine box. Select OK or hit F4. Then exit from DFSee and open an OS/2
    > command window run eject x: When the command prompt reappears remove and reinsert the
    > USB key. When the Device z: has been attached message appears, where z iswhatever
    > drive letter you actually put in the LVM information, run chkdsk z: /f. *You should
    > now be able to access the "drive" in any of the usual ways. Once you are finished
    > reading and writing to the device, don't forget to run the eject command before
    > unplugging it.
    >
    > For removable media, devices that are formatted FAT16 do not require thatthe LVM
    > DLAT area be filled in. Devices with other file systems cannot be opratedon unless
    > the LVM engine finds correct information in the DLAT area. In my previouspost I
    > forgot to mention the necessity of ejecting and reinserting the device after
    > christening it with LVM information.
    >
    > If you later insert the device when the drive letter specified in the LVMinformation
    > is unavailable, it will be necessary to change the LVM information to an available
    > drive letter, eject, reinsert, and chkdsk in order to use the device.


    What I find bizarre is that LVM apparently has the ability to write a
    drive letter to
    the DLAT area. After all, a completely blank drive can be configured
    by LVM for
    use by OS/2. But if the drive isn't blank, suddenly LVM refuses to
    write a drive
    letter to the DLAT area, thus forcing the use of a third-party
    utility. Sure wish I
    knew IBM's reasoning for this difference in behavior.

    Is there in fact any standards organization that oversees the use of
    the MBR and
    EBR of a disk drive? Or was it simply a case of "we invented the
    technology,
    therefore we get to decide how to use it"? The VOICE Newsletter
    article that
    Peter referred to states that Partition Magic and Windows are two
    notoriously
    buggy partitioning tools, because they do "non-standard" things. I'm
    concerned
    that what we have here is a case of "well, this area is currently
    unused, so we're
    going to use it for our own purposes, and to hell with anybody else
    who decides
    to do something different with that same unused area". Microsoft is
    notorious for
    creating defacto standards because of their near-monopoly in operating
    system
    software. So although the DLAT area had previously been unused and is
    supposedly invisible to, and cannot adversely affect, any operating
    system that
    is not LVM based, might this situation change in the future if a
    particular vendor
    of a non-LVM-based operating system decides that it wants to use that
    same
    "special sector" for its own purposes, thereby creating an
    incompatibility?

  4. Re: Flash Drive setup.

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    > James J. Weinkam wrote:
    >
    >>> I don't understand. The removable device monitor tells me "The device O: has
    >>> been attached !" and a drive O: shows up in the Drives folder, so it appears that
    >>> the drive letter has already been assigned.

    >
    >> At this point, start DFSee. Go to the Edit menu and choose Edit LVM information.
    >> Select the partition corresponding to your USB key. Set the drive letter to the one
    >> that the device was attached to, say x, or if you prefer, any other drive letter that
    >> you know will be available when you reinsert the device. Do not check the synchronize
    >> with live LVM engine box. Select OK or hit F4. Then exit from DFSee and open an OS/2
    >> command window run eject x: When the command prompt reappears remove and reinsert the
    >> USB key. When the Device z: has been attached message appears, where z is whatever
    >> drive letter you actually put in the LVM information, run chkdsk z: /f. You should
    >> now be able to access the "drive" in any of the usual ways. Once you are finished
    >> reading and writing to the device, don't forget to run the eject command before
    >> unplugging it.
    >>
    >> For removable media, devices that are formatted FAT16 do not require that the LVM
    >> DLAT area be filled in. Devices with other file systems cannot be oprated on unless
    >> the LVM engine finds correct information in the DLAT area. In my previous post I
    >> forgot to mention the necessity of ejecting and reinserting the device after
    >> christening it with LVM information.
    >>
    >> If you later insert the device when the drive letter specified in the LVM information
    >> is unavailable, it will be necessary to change the LVM information to an available
    >> drive letter, eject, reinsert, and chkdsk in order to use the device.

    >
    > What I find bizarre is that LVM apparently has the ability to write a
    > drive letter to
    > the DLAT area. After all, a completely blank drive can be configured
    > by LVM for
    > use by OS/2. But if the drive isn't blank, suddenly LVM refuses to
    > write a drive
    > letter to the DLAT area, thus forcing the use of a third-party
    > utility. Sure wish I
    > knew IBM's reasoning for this difference in behavior.
    >

    I think the problem is that if LVM thinks the allocation information in the MBR
    and/or the various EBR's on the drive is corrupt it refuses to make any modifications
    to the drive for fear of making things worse. In general, IBM software checks more
    things for consistency and is more conservative, and is therefore less likely to
    screw things up than software from most other vendors. In this particular case,
    however, I think that they over did it.


    > Is there in fact any standards organization that oversees the use of
    > the MBR and
    > EBR of a disk drive? Or was it simply a case of "we invented the
    > technology,
    > therefore we get to decide how to use it"? The VOICE Newsletter
    > article that
    > Peter referred to states that Partition Magic and Windows are two
    > notoriously
    > buggy partitioning tools, because they do "non-standard" things. I'm
    > concerned
    > that what we have here is a case of "well, this area is currently
    > unused, so we're
    > going to use it for our own purposes, and to hell with anybody else
    > who decides
    > to do something different with that same unused area". Microsoft is
    > notorious for
    > creating defacto standards because of their near-monopoly in operating
    > system
    > software. So although the DLAT area had previously been unused and is
    > supposedly invisible to, and cannot adversely affect, any operating
    > system that
    > is not LVM based, might this situation change in the future if a
    > particular vendor
    > of a non-LVM-based operating system decides that it wants to use that
    > same
    > "special sector" for its own purposes, thereby creating an
    > incompatibility?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2