Has anyone tried any USB 3.o devices with any flavor or Linux? I've seen some sites stating that since 2.6.31 usb 3.0 is supported but linux.org/newsstates the following:
"The xHCI driver is already included in linux-next and since Linuxhttp://www.linux.org/news/2009/06/10/0004.html#2.6.30 has just been released, it should go into the main development tree from which Linux version 2.6.31 will emerge around late August. Users that want to have a look at the new driver can find it in the Git repository."
Just wanting to know general experiences if someone has taken the leap... I'm looking at a 2TB external WD drive and am also curious as to which vendor (sabrent, evga, etc) generally has the fewest issues with newer technology.
Thanks!
Peter
On Monday, August 09, 2010 02:25:49 pm Peter Cross wrote:
Has anyone tried any USB 3.o devices with any flavor or Linux? I've seen some sites stating that since 2.6.31 usb 3.0 is supported but linux.org/newsstates the following:
Do note in general, USB 3.0 is /not/ compatible with USB 1 or 2.
"The xHCI driver is already included in linux-next and since Linuxhttp://www.linux.org/news/2009/06/10/0004.html#2.6.30 has just been released, it should go into the main development tree from which Linux version 2.6.31 will emerge around late August. Users that want to have a look at the new driver can find it in the Git repository."
Linux 2.6.30 is pretty old... 2.6.35 is about to be released soon. If it was going to be ready for 2.6.31, I can only imagine it must be pretty stable by 2.6.34 (current stable).
Disclaimer: I have no USB 3 devices, nor any computers that actually support USB 3.0.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Do note in general, USB 3.0 is /not/ compatible with USB 1 or 2.
Care to explain?
http://www.everythingusb.com/superspeed-usb.html#5
- Will my existing peripherals still work? How will they co-exist?
The good news is that USB 3.0 has been carefully planned from the start to peacefully co-exist with USB 2.0. First of all, while USB 3.0 specifies new physical connections and thus new cables to take advantage of the higher speed capability of the new protocol, the connector itself remains the same rectangular shape with the four USB 2.0 contacts in the exact same location as before. Five new connections to carry receive and transitted data independently are present on USB 3.0 cables and only come into contact when mated with a proper SuperSpeed USB connection.
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 07:00:01 pm Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Do note in general, USB 3.0 is /not/ compatible with USB 1 or 2.
Care to explain?
- Will my existing peripherals still work? How will they co-exist?
The good news is that USB 3.0 has been carefully planned from the start to peacefully co-exist with USB 2.0. First of all, while USB 3.0 specifies new physical connections and thus new cables to take advantage of the higher speed capability of the new protocol, the connector itself remains the same rectangular shape with the four USB 2.0 contacts in the exact same location as before. Five new connections to carry receive and transitted data independently are present on USB 3.0 cables and only come into contact when mated with a proper SuperSpeed USB connection.
Well, that's interesting! I guess I had assumed the physical connection change was on both ends, to avoid people mistakenly thinking it was compatible, but I see it in fact has another purpose. Unfortunately, some devices (such as mice) have the cable built-in and thus could not possibly remain compatible.
The USB A side has the same form factor. The B side has am added piece.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 07:00:01 pm Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Do note in general, USB 3.0 is /not/ compatible with USB 1 or 2.
Care to explain?
- Will my existing peripherals still work? How will they co-exist?
The good news is that USB 3.0 has been carefully planned from the start to peacefully co-exist with USB 2.0. First of all, while USB 3.0 specifies new physical connections and thus new cables to take advantage of the higher speed capability of the new protocol, the connector itself remains the same rectangular shape with the four USB 2.0 contacts in the exact same location as before. Five new connections to carry receive and transitted data independently are present on USB 3.0 cables and only come into contact when mated with a proper SuperSpeed USB connection.
Well, that's interesting! I guess I had assumed the physical connection change was on both ends, to avoid people mistakenly thinking it was compatible, but I see it in fact has another purpose. Unfortunately, some devices (such as mice) have the cable built-in and thus could not possibly remain compatible. _______________________________________________ KCLUG mailing list KCLUG@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
2010/8/25 Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org
Unfortunately, some devices (such as mice) have the cable built-in and thus could not possibly remain compatible.
How do you figure? The USB 3.0 standard was designed so that when you plug an older USB cable into it, it works as USB 2.0. That's what "compatible" means.
Obviously, the older devices won't be able to take advantage of new USB 3.0 features, but that doesn't somehow make them "incompatible".
I believe what they mean about the USB 3 cables and connectors being compatible is that extra wires and contacts are being added, but they do not interfere with current connectors and wires.
________________ | _ _ _ _ | _________________ old connector example (Not even close to scale)
________________ |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| new connector example with extra contacts between the four old ones. ________________
Think about RJ45 connectors on Network cables; they had 8 contacts, but only 4 were used in 10/100 networking. After the switch to Gigabit networking, all 8 contacts and wires needed to be punched down/connected. In the old 10/100, the extra 4 were present, but just used as ground and it one disconnected at the RJ45 end or in the wire somewhere, you would still have a network connection, just less grounding and attenuation dampening.
Brian Kelsay
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke-Jr Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 7:17 PM
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 07:00:01 pm Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Luke-Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Do note in general, USB 3.0 is /not/ compatible with USB 1 or 2.
Care to explain?
- Will my existing peripherals still work? How will they co-exist?
The good news is that USB 3.0 has been carefully planned from the start to peacefully co-exist with USB 2.0. First of all, while USB 3.0 specifies new physical connections and thus new cables to take advantage of the higher speed capability of the new protocol, the connector itself remains the same rectangular shape with the four USB 2.0 contacts in the exact same location as before. Five new connections to carry receive and transitted data independently are present on USB 3.0 cables and only come into contact when mated with a proper SuperSpeed USB connection.
Well, that's interesting! I guess I had assumed the physical connection change was on both ends, to avoid people mistakenly thinking it was compatible, but I see it in fact has another purpose. Unfortunately, some devices (such as mice) have the cable built-in and thus could not possibly remain compatible. _______________________________________________
I had no issues whatsoever plugging a new 2T external seagate into Knoppix. Just worked.
Was the external 2TB USB 3.0?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
I had no issues whatsoever plugging a new 2T external seagate into Knoppix. Just worked.
-
David Nicol -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Luke-Jr -
Monty J. Harder -
Peter Cross -
Philip Dorr