Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-29 Thread Lars Brinkhoff
Johnny Billquist wrote: > Right. But that sounded what the OP was looking for. He noted that > serial number and information was written to the pack. The serial > number is never, as far as I can remember, for any disk drive, written > anywhere in any header fields or similar. The ITS program

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-28 Thread Johnny Billquist
On 2019-06-28 15:45, Paul Koning wrote: On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: From a hardware point of view, sector header "Word 3" and "Word 4" have no particular meaning. Just for completeness, can you point me to a reference where "pack number" is defined or used by the

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-28 Thread Clem Cole
FWIW: When Ted and I wrote fcsk in the mid 1970s, (after some arguing about assuming perfect media) we added the notion of a bad block list to the assign to the bad block file (it was not in the original code), but we knew nothing about BAD144 at the time since we both were students. Ultrix

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-28 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> From a hardware point of view, sector header "Word 3" and "Word 4" have >> no particular meaning. Just for completeness, can you point me to a >> reference where "pack number" is defined or used by the software? > > Search for DEC

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-28 Thread Johnny Billquist
On 2019-06-28 00:59, Rob Doyle wrote: On 6/26/2019 9:54 PM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: SALV actually writes data for an entire track all in one go.  I tried something which skips the headers in the middie.  But there must be something else wrong with my code, because when reading back the sector

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-27 Thread Rob Doyle
On 6/26/2019 9:54 PM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: SALV actually writes data for an entire track all in one go. I tried something which skips the headers in the middie. But there must be something else wrong with my code, because when reading back the sector data I just get zeroes. Anway, I agree

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-27 Thread Johnny Billquist
Sorry, I did oversimplify it, yes. Essentially, I meant that you should write the data part as a normal write, and ignore the extra fluff required for the write header. That ought to make most software happy. So, skipping extra words intended for the header, adjust size accordingly.

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-26 Thread Lars Brinkhoff
SALV actually writes data for an entire track all in one go. I tried something which skips the headers in the middie. But there must be something else wrong with my code, because when reading back the sector data I just get zeroes. Anway, I agree something like that would go most of the way to

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS, salvager)

2019-06-26 Thread Bob Supnik
I don't think it's that straightforward. The write header and data command must include the proper Massbus word count for header and data. The Unibus side of the RH11 is doing 18b transfers, and so is the disk side, so the word count ought to be 260 for an RP and 258 for an RM. If the

Re: [Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS salvager)

2019-06-26 Thread Johnny Billquist
On 2019-06-26 19:54, Bob Supnik wrote: Implementing a more complete form of read/write/write check header is not as straightforward as I thought, because the RP and RM drives use different header formats. The RP expects 4 16 bit words, of which the first two are used, and the second are "for

[Simh] RP/RM differences in header commands (for ITS salvager)

2019-06-26 Thread Bob Supnik
Implementing a more complete form of read/write/write check header is not as straightforward as I thought, because the RP and RM drives use different header formats. The RP expects 4 16 bit words, of which the first two are used, and the second are "for software". Word 0 is cylinder plus