mirror of
https://github.com/davidgiven/fluxengine.git
synced 2025-10-31 11:17:01 -07:00
Add the problems page.
This commit is contained in:
David Given
12
doc/index.md
12
doc/index.md
@@ -52,6 +52,14 @@ to be spinning at the same speed.
|
||||
which means there's only 166ms of data on one per track rather than 200ms;
|
||||
if you try to write a 3.5" format disk onto one it probably won't work.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q.** Does it work on 8" drives?
|
||||
|
||||
**A.** Probably? You'd need an adapter to let you connect the drive to the
|
||||
FluxEngine --- [you can get them](http://www.dbit.com/fdadap.html). I don't
|
||||
have either the adapter, the drive, or any 8" disks. If anyone wants to give
|
||||
it a try, please [tell me about
|
||||
it](https://github.com/davidgiven/fluxengine/issues/new).
|
||||
|
||||
**Q.** Is this like KryoFlux? Do you support KryoFlux stream files?
|
||||
|
||||
**A.** It's very like KryoFlux, although much simpler. Yes, FluxEngine can
|
||||
@@ -59,6 +67,10 @@ read from KryoFlux stream files (but not write to them yet; nobody's asked).
|
||||
FluxEngine doesn't capture all the data that KryoFlux does, like index
|
||||
markers.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q.** I've tried it and my disk doesn't work!
|
||||
|
||||
**A.** [I have an entire page on diagnosing read failures.](problems.html)
|
||||
|
||||
**Q.** That's awesome! What formats does it support?
|
||||
|
||||
**A.** I'm glad you asked the question. Consult the following table!
|
||||
|
||||
298
doc/problems.md
Normal file
298
doc/problems.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
|
||||
My disk won't read properly!
|
||||
============================
|
||||
|
||||
So you're trying to read a disk and it's not working. Well, you're not the only one. Floppy disks are unreliable and awkward things. FluxEngine can help, but the tools aren't very user friendly.
|
||||
|
||||
The sector map
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
Every time I do a read, FluxEngine will give me a dump like this:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
H.SS Tracks --->
|
||||
0. 0 XBBXXXXXXXXXBXBBXBBXBBX..XXX.BXBBBXXX....BB...BB...........B.XXXX.X....BBBBBBXBB
|
||||
0. 1 X.BXXXXBBXXX.XBBXBXXBBB.XXXX.BBXBXXBX....BB...BX........BB.B.XXXX.X....BBBBBBXBX
|
||||
0. 2 X..XXXXXBXXX.XBBXXBXBBB.BXXB.BXBBBXXX...BXX.B.BB.........B.B.XXXX.X....BBBBBBXBX
|
||||
0. 3 X.BXXXXXXXXX.X.XXBBXBBX.XXXX.XXXXXXXX...BBX.X.XX......B....B.XXXB.X....BBBXBBXBX
|
||||
0. 4 X.BXXXXXXXXX.XBXXBXXBBB.XXXX.BXXXXXXX...BBB.X.BX......B....B.XXXX.X....BBBBBBXBX
|
||||
0. 5 X.BXXXXXXXXX.XBXXBBXBB.BXXXX.XXXXXXXX...XBB.X.XX.....B.....B.XXXX.B....BBBXBBXBX
|
||||
0. 6 X..XXXXBXXXX.X.XXBBXBBB.XXXB.XXBBBXXX..B.BB.B.XB.............XXXX.X....BBBXBBXBX
|
||||
0. 7 X..XXXXBXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.BXXX.XXXBXXXX..BBXX.X.XX......B....B.XXXX.X....BBBXBBXBX
|
||||
0. 8 X.BXXXXBXXXXBX.XXBBXBBX.XXXX.XXXXXXXX..BXXX.X.XX......BB.B...XXXX.X....BBBBXBXBX
|
||||
0. 9 X.BXXXXXXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.XXXX.XXXXXXXX..XXXX.X.XX......X......XXXX.X....BBBBBBXBX
|
||||
0.10 X..XXXXBXXXXBX.XXBBXXB..BXXXBBXXBXXXX..BBXB.B.BB.............XXXX.X....BBBBBXXBX
|
||||
0.11 X..XXXXXXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.XXXX.BXXXXXXX..XXXX.X.BB....B........XXXX.X....BBBBBBBBB
|
||||
0.12 X.BXXXXXXXXXBX.XXBXXXXB.XXXX.XXXXXXXX..XXXX.X.XX.........B.B.BXXX.B....XXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.13 X..XBXXXXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.XXXX.XXXXXXXX..XXXX.X.XX....B.B.BB.BXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.14 XB.XXXXXXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.XXXB.XXBXXXXB..BBB..B.BBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.15 X..XXXXXXXXXBX.XXBBXBBB.XXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.16 X..XXBXXBXBXBBBXXBBXBBB.XXBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.17 XBBXXXXB.XXXBXBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.18 XBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
Good sectors: 369/1520 (24%)
|
||||
Missing sectors: 847/1520 (55%)
|
||||
Bad sectors: 304/1520 (20%)
|
||||
80 tracks, 1 heads, 19 sectors, 512 bytes per sector, 760 kB total
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This is the **sector map**, and is showing me the status of every sector it
|
||||
found on the disk. (Tracks on the X-axis, sectors on the Y-axis.) This is a
|
||||
very bad read from a [Victor 9000](victor9k.html) disk; good reads shouldn't
|
||||
look like this. A dot represents a good sector. A B is one where the CRC
|
||||
check failed; an X is one which couldn't be found at all.
|
||||
|
||||
At the very bottom there's a summary: 24% good sectors. Let me try and improve
|
||||
that.
|
||||
|
||||
(You may notice the wedge of Xs in the bottom right. This is because the
|
||||
Victor 9000 uses a varying number of sectors per track; the short tracks in
|
||||
the middle of the disk store less. So, it's perfectly normal that those
|
||||
sectors are missing. This will affect the 'good sectors' score, so it's
|
||||
normal not to have 100% on this disk.)
|
||||
|
||||
Clock detection
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
When FluxEngine sees a track, it attempts to automatically guess the clock
|
||||
rate of the data in the track. It does this by computing a histogram of the
|
||||
spacing between pulses and attempting to detect the shortest peak. The
|
||||
histogram should look something like this.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Clock detection histogram:
|
||||
3.58 737 ▉
|
||||
3.67 3838 ████▊
|
||||
3.75 13078 ████████████████▌
|
||||
3.83 31702 ████████████████████████████████████████
|
||||
3.92 26682 █████████████████████████████████▋
|
||||
4.00 22282 ████████████████████████████
|
||||
4.08 12222 ███████████████▍
|
||||
4.17 4731 █████▉
|
||||
4.25 1001 █▎
|
||||
...
|
||||
7.33 236 ▎
|
||||
7.42 1800 ██▎
|
||||
7.50 5878 ███████▍
|
||||
7.58 10745 █████████████▌
|
||||
7.67 12442 ███████████████▋
|
||||
7.75 10144 ████████████▊
|
||||
7.83 6698 ████████▍
|
||||
7.92 2779 ███▌
|
||||
8.00 740 ▉
|
||||
...
|
||||
11.17 159 ▏
|
||||
11.25 624 ▊
|
||||
11.33 1723 ██▏
|
||||
11.42 3268 ████
|
||||
11.50 4608 █████▊
|
||||
11.58 4643 █████▊
|
||||
11.67 3507 ████▍
|
||||
11.75 2178 ██▋
|
||||
11.83 868 █
|
||||
11.92 258 ▎
|
||||
...
|
||||
Noise floor: 317
|
||||
Signal level: 3170
|
||||
Peak start: 42 (3.50 us)
|
||||
Peak end: 52 (4.33 us)
|
||||
Median: 47 (3.92 us)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That's _not_ the histogram from the Victor disk; that's an Apple II disk, and
|
||||
shows three nice clear spikes (which is very characteristic of the GCR
|
||||
encoding which the Apple II used). The numbers at the bottom show that a peak
|
||||
has been detected between 3.50us and 4.33us, and the median is 3.92us, which
|
||||
corresponds more-or-less with the top of the peak; that's the clock rate
|
||||
FluxEngine can use.
|
||||
|
||||
So, what does my Victor 9000 histogram look like? Let's look at the
|
||||
histogram for a single track:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
$ fe-readvictor -s diskimage/:s=0:t=0 --show-clock-histogram
|
||||
Reading from: diskimage/:d=0:s=0:t=0
|
||||
0.0: 829 ms in 316193 bytes
|
||||
Clock detection histogram:
|
||||
1.25 447 ▌
|
||||
1.33 16283 ████████████████████▎
|
||||
1.42 22879 ████████████████████████████▌
|
||||
1.50 4564 █████▋
|
||||
1.58 1272 █▌
|
||||
1.67 19594 ████████████████████████▍
|
||||
1.75 32059 ████████████████████████████████████████
|
||||
1.83 18042 ██████████████████████▌
|
||||
1.92 2249 ██▊
|
||||
2.00 8825 ███████████
|
||||
2.08 16031 ████████████████████
|
||||
2.17 5080 ██████▎
|
||||
2.25 409 ▌
|
||||
2.33 7216 █████████
|
||||
2.42 6269 ███████▊
|
||||
2.50 514 ▋
|
||||
2.58 5176 ██████▍
|
||||
2.67 13080 ████████████████▎
|
||||
2.75 6774 ████████▍
|
||||
2.83 1916 ██▍
|
||||
2.92 10880 █████████████▌
|
||||
3.00 21277 ██████████████████████████▌
|
||||
3.08 11625 ██████████████▌
|
||||
3.17 1028 █▎
|
||||
...
|
||||
3.67 1910 ██▍
|
||||
3.75 19720 ████████████████████████▌
|
||||
3.83 12365 ███████████████▍
|
||||
3.92 814 █
|
||||
4.00 3144 ███▉
|
||||
4.08 5776 ███████▏
|
||||
4.17 3278 ████
|
||||
4.25 8487 ██████████▌
|
||||
4.33 15922 ███████████████████▊
|
||||
4.42 9656 ████████████
|
||||
4.50 1540 █▉
|
||||
...
|
||||
Noise floor: 320
|
||||
Signal level: 3205
|
||||
Peak start: 14 (1.17 us)
|
||||
Peak end: 39 (3.25 us)
|
||||
Median: 23 (1.92 us)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That's... not good. The disk is very noisy, and the intervals between pulses
|
||||
are horribly distributed. The detected clock is 1.92us, which is clearly
|
||||
wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
I can override the clock detection and specify the clock manually. 1.75us
|
||||
looks like a good candidate. Let's try that on track 0.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
$ fe-readvictor9k -s diskimage/:s=0:t=0 --manual-clock-rate-us=1.75
|
||||
...skipped...
|
||||
No sectors in output; skipping analysis
|
||||
0 tracks, 0 heads, 0 sectors, 0 bytes per sector, 0 kB total
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Nope, nothing --- FluxEngine was unable to find any valid data. How about
|
||||
1.42us, this time for the whole disk?
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
$ fe-readvictor9k -s diskimage/:s=0:t=0 --manual-clock-rate-us=1.42
|
||||
...skipped...
|
||||
H.SS Tracks --->
|
||||
0. 0 .BBBBBBBBXBBBBBBXXXXXXXXXBB
|
||||
0. 1 B.BBBBBBBXXXXBBBXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0. 2 B..BBBBBBBBBXBBBXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0. 3 B.BBBBBBBXBB.BBBXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0. 4 B.BBBBBBBXBB.BBBXBXXXXXXXBB
|
||||
0. 5 B.BBBBBBBBBB.BXBXXXXXXXXXBB
|
||||
0. 6 B..BBBBBBXBBXBXBXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0. 7 B..BBBBBBBBBXB.XXXBBXXXBXBX
|
||||
0. 8 B.BBBBBBBBBBXB.BXBBXXXX.XXX
|
||||
0. 9 B.BBBBBBBXXXXX.BXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.10 B..BBBBBBBBBXB.BXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.11 B..BBBBBXXBXBB.BXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.12 B.BBBBBB.BXBBB.BXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.13 B..BBBBB.BBBBB.BXXBXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.14 BB.BBBBBXBBBBB.BXBXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.15 B..BBBBB.XBBBB.BXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.16 B..BBBBBBXBBXBBBXBBXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.17 BBBBBBBB.XBBXBBBXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.18 BBBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
Good sectors: 42/513 (8%)
|
||||
Missing sectors: 234/513 (45%)
|
||||
Bad sectors: 237/513 (46%)
|
||||
27 tracks, 1 heads, 19 sectors, 512 bytes per sector, 256 kB total
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
It found something. The sectors in track 0 are now B rather than X, which
|
||||
means that FluxEngine at least found them, and look, one sector even passed
|
||||
its CRC!
|
||||
|
||||
But it turns out that the Victor 9000 actually uses a varying clock rate from
|
||||
track to track, so as to fit more data on the longer tracks on the outside of
|
||||
the disk. So, manually setting the clock rate to 1.42us has actually made
|
||||
things _worse_ at the other end of the disk. Our overall bad sector rate has
|
||||
gone up from 20% to 46%.
|
||||
|
||||
So, I look back at the histogram. I want to keep using the clock
|
||||
autodetection, but persuade it to detect the right clock. There _is_ a peak
|
||||
at 1.42us, but there's enough noise around it to confuse the peak detection
|
||||
algorithm. You can see from the summary at the end that it thinks the peak
|
||||
extends from 1.17us to 3.25us.
|
||||
|
||||
The way to correct this is to change the noise floor. This makes it ignore
|
||||
frequencies below a certain level. Raising this will make it much more
|
||||
conservative about what it considers a frequency peak. With good data, this
|
||||
actually makes frequency detection _less_ accurate, but with bad data it can
|
||||
help.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
$ fe-readvictor9k -s diskimage/:s=0:t=0 --show-clock-histogram --noise-floor-factor=0.25
|
||||
Reading from: diskimage/:d=0:s=0:t=0
|
||||
0.0: 829 ms in 316193 bytes
|
||||
Clock detection histogram:
|
||||
1.33 16283 ████████████████████▎
|
||||
1.42 22879 ████████████████████████████▌
|
||||
1.50 4564 █████▋
|
||||
...
|
||||
1.67 19594 ████████████████████████▍
|
||||
1.75 32059 ████████████████████████████████████████
|
||||
1.83 18042 ██████████████████████▌
|
||||
...
|
||||
2.00 8825 ███████████
|
||||
2.08 16031 ████████████████████
|
||||
2.17 5080 ██████▎
|
||||
...
|
||||
...skipped...
|
||||
Noise floor: 8014
|
||||
Signal level: 3205
|
||||
Peak start: 15 (1.25 us)
|
||||
Peak end: 18 (1.50 us)
|
||||
Median: 17 (1.42 us)
|
||||
...skipped...
|
||||
Good sectors: 1/19 (5%)
|
||||
Missing sectors: 0/19 (0%)
|
||||
Bad sectors: 18/19 (94%)
|
||||
1 tracks, 1 heads, 19 sectors, 512 bytes per sector, 9 kB total
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
So, it's now found a peak from 1.25us to 1.50us, with a median of 1.42us ---
|
||||
exactly what I wanted. Let's try it on the whole disk:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
H.SS Tracks --->
|
||||
0. 0 .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.BBB.B..BB.....................................................
|
||||
0. 1 B.BBBBBBBBXXX.BBB.BBB.X..BB..........B..........................................
|
||||
0. 2 B..BBBBBB.BBXBBBB.BBB.X..BB.......B.............................................
|
||||
0. 3 B.BBBBBBBBBB.B.BX.BBB.B..BB......B..............................................
|
||||
0. 4 B.BBBBBB.BBB.BBBB.BBB.B..BB.....B...............................................
|
||||
0. 5 B.BBBBBBBBBB.BBBB.BBB.XB.BB.....B.B.............................................
|
||||
0. 6 B..BBBBBBBBBXB.BX.BBB.X.XXB.....................................................
|
||||
0. 7 B..BBBBBBBBBXB.XB.BBB.X.BBB.....................................................
|
||||
0. 8 B.BBBBBBBBBBXB.BB.BBB.X.XXX.B...................................................
|
||||
0. 9 B.BBBBBBBBXXX..BX.BXB.X.XXXBB...................................................
|
||||
0.10 B..BBBBB.BBBXB.BB.BBB...BBB.B...................................................
|
||||
0.11 B..BBBBB.BBXBB.BB.BXB.B.BBB.B......B............................................
|
||||
0.12 B.BBBBBB.BXBBB.BB.BXX.X.XXX........B...................................XXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.13 B..BBBBB.BBBBB.BX.BBB.X.BXB......BB.........................XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.14 BB.BBBBB..BBBB.BB.BBB.B.XBB.B....BB.B...........XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.15 B..BBBBB.BBBBB.BB.BBB.X.XBB.B....B....XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.16 B..BBBBB.BBBXBBBB.BBB.X.BXBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.17 BBBBBBBB.BBBX.BBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
0.18 BBBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
|
||||
Good sectors: 834/1520 (54%)
|
||||
Missing sectors: 346/1520 (22%)
|
||||
Bad sectors: 340/1520 (22%)
|
||||
80 tracks, 1 heads, 19 sectors, 512 bytes per sector, 760 kB total
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
54% good sectors --- much better! Most of the top half of the disk is reading
|
||||
flawlessly. The bottom half is still dreadful, but much better.
|
||||
|
||||
I picked this disk as a sample because it's essentially wrecked. It's the
|
||||
worst disk image I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't scan this myself, because
|
||||
chances are it's all mouldy and would wreck my disk heads. But its very
|
||||
badness makes it a good example.
|
||||
|
||||
(I am continually improving the clock detection and data extraction
|
||||
algorithms. I have actually seen someone get more data than I off this image,
|
||||
with a mostly-good read of track 0. I must find out their secrets...)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user