TiVo Community Forums Archives - MFS Tools 2.0 boot info

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

MFS Tools 2.0 boot info
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: mike

This is for all of you Linux guys…

Is the boot info that MFS Tools 2.0 reports (when pressing SHIFT + PAGE UP) about the computer and associated hardware correct? Specifically the UDMA info for the drives?

I have yet to find a computer that reports UDMA (100). Most are at UDMA (16), UDMA (33) or possibly UDMA (66).

If the info is correct, it's a nice diagnostic tool, but the results have been disappointing.

Mike

Posted by: bsnelson

Looking at the 2.4.17 kernel sources (it's all I have on hand), the ability to at least print "UDMA(66)" and "UDMA(100)" does exist; comments in the source remind us that a 80 wire cable is necessary for >33, and in fact, is a requirement for the kernel to go any higher than 33.

So, I'd ask: If you have a >33 capable IDE chipset and a drive(s) capable of higher rates, have you used the 80 wire cable?

It does, BTW, seem to print what is actually in use, not what it's capable of.

Brad

Posted by: mike

Thanks for the response. The motherboard (Intel D845GBV) is capable of UDMA100, the cable is an 80-conductor (tried many other ones too), the Bios however, appears to be another story.

When manually configured to UDMA mode 2 (UDMA33), I get UDMA33 (as reported with MSF tools 2.0). Selecting anything higher (UDAM modes 3, 4, 5, or 6) results in no DMA or UDMA info after drive description. Auto also shows no DMA or UDMA for the drive. I now tried a brand new 60 GB WD 7200RPM drive with the same results.

It appears that the Intel BIOS is not allowing any UDMA in auto mode, and only UDMA mode 2 (UDMA33) in manual configuration. I think an e-mail to Intel tech support is now in order (since a phone call is now 25 bucks!).

Thanks,

MIke