18 Feb
2019
18 Feb
'19
8:22 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2/18/19 4:35 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
Looking at the SIMH code:
/*
type sec surf cyl tpg gpc RCT LBNs
RA81 51(+1) 14 1258 14 1 2856 891072
*/
#define RA81_SECT 51 /* +1 spare/track */
#define RA81_SURF 14
#define RA81_CYL 1258 /* 0-1247 user */
#define RA81_TPG RA81_SURF
#define RA81_GPC 1
#define RA81_XBN 2436 /* cyl 1252-1254? */
#define RA81_DBN 2436 /* cyl 1255-1256? */
#define RA81_LBN 891072 /* 51*14*1248 */
#define RA81_RCTS 2856 /* cyl 1248-1251? */
#define RA81_RCTC 1
#define RA81_RBN 17472 /* 1 *14*1248 */
I am presuming that (without actually checking) that these are the numbers
returned to RSTS when it queries the disk; if these numbers are different
then the h/w, then that could be an issue. I am a bit curious about "+1
spare/track" - I wonder if the h/w reports 51 or 52?
-- Charles
It would be interesting if you can post the exact
sizes in blocks of the
SIMH image, and the real disk you copied it to. That would
help confirm my
guess that it's a size issue.
If it's a size issue then one of them is doing it wrong because the
size of an RA81 constant.