whofan@well.UUCP (Brian Lawrence Dear) (09/12/89)
Well, we finally got a second hard disk for our AST Premium/386 20mHz machine. We got a CDC WREN V, 1224 cylinders, 15 heads. Now, we got it up and running, and fdisk says it's got 308000 blocks, or about 317 megabytes, which is right, but the XENIX kernel or something will only let us get at the first 1024 cylinders (indeed, if that many). When I do a "df -v" the drive says it has 198000 blocks total. Or a little over 200MB. We need the whole thing, and we need it bad. I can't believe version 2.2.3 can't support big hard disk drives. I called SCO Support today and got a suggestion that I play with DOS DEBUG and fiddle with the WD1007-WAH ESDI controller chip that's on AST's disk controller card. I said, what do I type into DEBUG, like what address, etc? He said he didn't know. So I am kinda stuck. Is there anything I can do to get access to the full 317 MB of the drive, under SCO XENIX 386 2.2.3? Or will I have to buy SCO UNIX? The SCO Support guy said that this problem "doesn't exist" on SCO UNIX (hmm...). Has anyone encountered a similar situation? What did you do? If I have to upgrade, and say I upgrade to 2.3.1... would I have to delete everything that's on the disk now, and reformat it? I hear that version 2.3.1 supports big drives like the WREN... Any and all suggestions are appreciated! -- brian l. dear coconut computing, inc. 7946 ivanhoe ave, suite 303 la jolla, ca 92037
rickf@pmafire.UUCP (rick furniss) (09/12/89)
My manual or (release notes), state that SCO Unix3.2 has a 1024 cylinder limit still. ! If SCO Unix3.2 can handle more than 1024 cylinders, then they better get it clarified, or in thier manuals. Where I currently use a WD1007 controller, it dosent matter to me, but I,m sure others do care about such details. (disclaimer) Rick Furniss
goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (09/12/89)
Re big Wren drives > 1024 cylinders
You can always use the option, available via your WD1007 controller,
of formatting the drive as usual, but having the controller make it
appear to the operating system as though there were 63 sectors per
track and a whole lot less tracks. I did this with my Miniscribe
3180E, and everything works fine. Dunno about your Wren for sure, but
you can always call WD. They know what is going on much better than
most of the drive manufacturers.
-Richard L. Goerwitz
goer@sophist.uchicago.edu
rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goerkarl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (09/13/89)
In article <13569@well.UUCP> whofan@well.UUCP (Brian Lawrence Dear) writes: > >Well, we finally got a second hard disk for our AST Premium/386 20mHz >machine. We got a CDC WREN V, 1224 cylinders, 15 heads. Now, >we got it up and running, and fdisk says it's got 308000 blocks, or about >317 megabytes, which is right, but the XENIX kernel or something will >only let us get at the first 1024 cylinders (indeed, if that many). >When I do a "df -v" the drive says it has 198000 blocks total. Or a little >over 200MB. We need the whole thing, and we need it bad. > >I can't believe version 2.2.3 can't support big hard disk drives. I called >SCO Support today and got a suggestion that I play with DOS DEBUG and >fiddle with the WD1007-WAH ESDI controller chip that's on AST's disk >controller card. I said, what do I type into DEBUG, like what address, etc? >He said he didn't know. So I am kinda stuck. Well, you have two choices: o) Change the jumpers on the controller so that it remaps the drive type to something that has < 1024 cylinders and 63 sectors per track. This is supported by the WD1007 controller. You should not have to reformat for this, although you will need to play (CAREFULLY) with the "dkinit" program. Make a floppy boot and root diskette before you mess with this! The geometry change itself is done through debug with "G=c800:5" from MSDOS. I am not certain whether messing with this will wipe the disk contents however -- I'd make a backup first to be sure. Whether AST's "funny" board can handle this is another matter. If you get really stuck you can toss the AST board and get a regular WD1007-WA2, those work great. o) Upgrade to 2.3.2, which will handle a drive with > 1024 cylinders. It is not necessary to go all the way to SCO Unix, although I guess you could do that as well. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
richard@neabbs.UUCP (RICHARD RONTELTAP) (09/13/89)
[ > 1024 cylinders ] We use a Newbury 1224 cylinder disk with SCO XENIX 2.2.3 and WD 1005 ESDI controller. The 'solution' to use the extra cylinders is so standard that I hardly dare to suggest it. Anyway, we just set up our BIOS to some drive type with the right number of heads, but less cylinders. (BIOS limit is 10 bits). Then, when installing XENIX, use the dkinit program to set the correct drive parameters. Works fine here. Again, this may not work with de WD 1007 or other controllers, but you never know. Richard (...!hp4nl!neabbs!richard)
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (09/13/89)
In article <751@pmafire.UUCP> rickf@pmafire.UUCP (Rick Furniss) writes: > My manual or (release notes), state that SCO Unix3.2 has a 1024 cylinder >limit still. ! If SCO Unix3.2 can handle more than 1024 cylinders, then they >better get it clarified, or in thier manuals. > SCO is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than 1024 cylinders. If you want to use a drive that has greater than 1024 cylinders, then you ought to purchase a controller such as, the WD1007 or DTC 6280 (ESDI) if you are running ESDI, and have the controller bios redefine the disk parameters (cylinder,head,sectors) which SCO uses. How a particular controller redefines the greater than 1024 cylinder disk is the responsibility of the controller manufacturer. If it don't work, it's the manufacturers problem, not SCO's. After all, which comes first, hardware selection, or software selection. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) (09/14/89)
In article <13569@well.UUCP> whofan@well.UUCP (Brian Lawrence Dear) writes: >Well, we finally got a second hard disk for our AST Premium/386 20mHz >machine. We got a CDC WREN V, 1224 cylinders, 15 heads. Now, >we got it up and running, and fdisk says it's got 308000 blocks, or about >317 megabytes, which is right, but the XENIX kernel or something will >only let us get at the first 1024 cylinders (indeed, if that many). SCO XENIX 2.2 and above has no problem using disks larger than 1024 cylinders. However, if you must share the disk with MS-DOS, you will be limited to 1024, because that is as much as MS-DOS understands. Another limitation may be your CMOS setup table, which may not have a disk entry large enough for your disk. If that is the case, use the entry that is closest, then during XENIX installation (or using the dparam(ADM) utility), alter the default disk parameters to match your hard disk. Ross Oliver Technical Support The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (09/14/89)
in article <5563@seac.UUCP>, wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) says: > Keywords: xenix, hard disk, cylinders, ESDI > > If it don't work, it's the manufacturers problem, not SCO's. After all, > which comes first, hardware selection, or software selection. For people migrating up from a DOS machine with a big disk to XENIX it's hardware selection..... Why did the 1024 limit start? Well, the MSDOS defined partition table layout only allows 10bit cylinder numbers. So I could see if the machine was going to have DOS and XENIX partitions using the disk to stick with the MSDOS partition table layout. However, if someone wnated a XENIX only machine shouldn't XENIX be easily able to do its own hard disk boot sector to handle a partition table layout that is different? And since XENIX is contained within one physical partition that then has logical partitions.... John H. Lawitzke UUCP: Work: ...uunet!frith!dale1!jhl Dale Computer Corp., R&D Home: ...uunet!frith!dale1!ipecac!jhl 2367 Science Parkway Internet: jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu Okemos, MI, 48864 [35.8.8.108]
terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) (09/14/89)
In article <5563@seac.UUCP> wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) writes: >SCO is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than >1024 cylinders. SCO, is this really true? Why would you throw away something as nice as the ability to specify > 1024 cylinders like you can in 2.3.x? Ross, could you clear this up for all of us? -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
ronald@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ronald Khoo) (09/14/89)
In article <5364@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: > >Re big Wren drives > 1024 cylinders > >You can always use the option, available via your WD1007 controller, >of formatting the drive as usual, but having the controller make it >appear to the operating system as though there were 63 sectors per >track and a whole lot less tracks. Beware that there are several pitfalls here: 1) invoking sector translation can have a performance hit. After all, mkfs/fsck -s organises the free list assuming the actual shape of the disc is what you tell it is. These assumptions can go horribly wrong when you invoke peculiar translations like the 1007 can do. It'll WORK, but you'll have your disc seeking all over the shop. Can you say Sloooooow? I thought you could... 2) there can be a confusion when you mention 63 sector mode-- there is a NON-TRANSLATED 63 sector mode where each sector is 256 bytes in size. (You did say WD1007 ESDI, right?) You definitely DO NOT want to low-level format the disc in this format :-) 3) Hey, why muck around? Xenix does *not* have a 1024 cylinder limit. Try it and see--just make sure that in the early part of the disc initialisation process, that you OVERRIDE the disc parameters. This causes /usr/lib/mkdev/hd to perform a dparam -w which lets you use a disc of any reasonable shape, even if your BIOS does not have a corresponding drive type number. Just use any type number with the same number of heads, and a lower cylinder count to enable the boot sequence to operate properly. No hassle. Honest. I do it alla time :-) -- Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ) Path: ...!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!ronald Phone: +44-1-863 1191 Fax: +44-1-863 6095 $Header: /users/ronald/.signature,v 1.1 89/09/03 23:36:16 ronald Exp $ :-)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (09/14/89)
In article <4593@cps3xx.UUCP> usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >For people migrating up from a DOS machine with a big disk to XENIX it's >hardware selection..... >Why did the 1024 limit start? Well, the MSDOS defined partition table >layout only allows 10bit cylinder numbers. So I could see if the >machine was going to have DOS and XENIX partitions using the disk to >stick with the MSDOS partition table layout. However, if someone wnated >a XENIX only machine shouldn't XENIX be easily able to do its own >hard disk boot sector to handle a partition table layout that is >different? Xenix 2.3, I can assure you, will work with disks that have more than 1024 cylinders. We routinely set them up with Maxstor XT4380Es and have no problem disabling the "remap" code, or in some cases even the BIOS (flaky system BIOS routines force this at times). In that case you end up with 1224 cyls X 15 heads, which works fine and gives you full capacity. I understand 2.2 can't hack this. Now someone's saying 3.2 doesn't? I find it hard to believe that 2.3 can deal with it, but 3.2 (which is supposed to be _more_ advanced) cannot. Not having 3.2 here (yet) I can't give you any first-hand information. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (09/15/89)
In article <4593@cps3xx.UUCP> usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: >in article <5563@seac.UUCP>, wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) says: >> Keywords: xenix, hard disk, cylinders, ESDI >> >> If it don't work, it's the manufacturers problem, not SCO's. After all, >> which comes first, hardware selection, or software selection. > >For people migrating up from a DOS machine with a big disk to XENIX it's >hardware selection..... > >Why did the 1024 limit start? Well, the MSDOS defined partition table >layout only allows 10bit cylinder numbers. So I could see if the >machine was going to have DOS and XENIX partitions using the disk to >stick with the MSDOS partition table layout. However, if someone wnated >a XENIX only machine shouldn't XENIX be easily able to do its own >hard disk boot sector to handle a partition table layout that is >different? And since XENIX is contained within one physical partition >that then has logical partitions.... > Was not trying to pose the 'Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?' question; nor trying to get into the technical reasons for why the 1024 limit is a reality. I agree with you, SCO should be able to do things itself. My posting was in-reply to the assertion that SCO UNIX 3.2's documentation should be clear on whether or not it supports greater than 1024 cylinders. And, I simply pointed out that it is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than 1024 cylinders. To quote from page A-12 of the Release Notes for SCO UNIX 3.2: "SCO supports UNIX on hard disks with up to the 1024 cylinders only. Some hard disks have more than 1024 cylinders. Due to the non-standard nature of the hard disk controllers that support disks with more than 1024 cylinders, and due to the need for DOS co-residency, SCO does not support UNIX on these disks. However, UNIX has been reported to work on disks with more than 1024 cylinders. For example, with the DPT PM3011 controller, UNIX works with disks containing 2048 cylinders, 16 heads, and 63 sectors, for a total maximum disk capacity of 1 gigabyte." If this quote is not clear as to what SCO UNIX 3.2 does and does not support, then I will have to declare myself 'illiterate.' (Probably should, anyways, if I keep getting myself into discussions that seemingly go round and round.) As to which comes first, the harware or the software, in this case, like it or not, buy the software first, then the hardware. SCO states, very succinctly that because it considers controllers that support greater than 1024 to be non-standard and because it supports DOS co-residency, it does not support greater than 1024 cylinders. Having dispensed with what SCO UNIX 3.2 does and does not support with respect to cylinder count, SCO UNIX 3.2 documentation at page A-23 states that they have 'used' a number of controllers, some of which provide a means to go beyond the 1024 limit in some manner. To support and to have used, from my perspective, are very different. That something 'works' has a different meaning, as well. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/15/89)
I am using Unix 3.2 with a 1224 cyl disk and the OMTI ESDI controller. It works fine. I can understand SCO not wanting to officially support such a thing, though. SCO has to run on a thousand platforms and they don't all handle 1224 cyl disks. But if they *say* they support it, and it goes wrong, then people are going to complain to SCO. And I doubt they need the headaches. What SCO has to do shortly, however, is list some harware configurations for large disks that are assured to work, and declare support for those. People do want large disks, now that they are getting so cheap. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jim@bahamut.fsc.com (James O'Connor) (09/15/89)
In article <5806@viscous.sco.COM>, rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) writes: > SCO XENIX 2.2 and above has no problem using disks larger than 1024 > cylinders. However, if you must share the disk with MS-DOS, you will > be limited to 1024, because that is as much as MS-DOS understands. I'm not sure this is exactly true, perhaps a little misleading is a better term. I have a CDC ESDI drive with 1224 cylinders. I used a version of Disk Manager that supports drives > 1024 clylinders to create a DOS partition > 200 cylinders (I don't remember how many exactly) so that the each of the two partitions (DOS and Xenix) were less than 1024 cylinders. Then I installed DOS on the DOS partition, Xenix on the other and everything works just dandy. Granted, when I run FDISK under DOS to look at the partition table it reports funny numbers, but DIR still reports the 30MB or so of space in the DOS partition. No problem for me. > Another limitation may be your CMOS setup table, which may not have > a disk entry large enough for your disk. If that is the case, use the > entry that is closest, then during XENIX installation (or using the > dparam(ADM) utility), alter the default disk parameters to match your > hard disk. I used the set up and format utilities builtin to the WD controller I have, and it did this for me (picking the CMOS setup table entry, that is), but it also did something that Xenix understood, cause when I ran dparam during the installation, the default number of cylinders came up as 1224. The only hard part about this whole ordeal was finding the right version of Disk Manager. :-) ------------- James B. O'Connor Work: jim@tiamat.fsc.com Filtration Sciences -- Play: jim@bahamut.fsc.com A division of Ahlstrom UUCP: uunet!tiamat!jim
bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) (09/16/89)
From article <5563@seac.UUCP>, by wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson): > SCO is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than > 1024 cylinders. If you want to use a drive that has greater than > 1024 cylinders, then you ought to purchase a controller such as, the > WD1007 or DTC 6280 (ESDI) if you are running ESDI, and have > the controller bios redefine the disk parameters (cylinder,head,sectors) > which SCO uses. Agreed, those controllers will provide the means to low-level format the drive throughout its data surface. But then the responsibility falls on the OS to use that surface; and SCO Xenix Releases 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and SCO UNIX 3.2 have all successfully been installed on a drive with 1166 cylinders using both DTC5287 and DTC7287 ( 1:1 interleave ) disk controllers. Other drives with > 1024 cylinders have successfully been installed under similar hardware environments. `dparam /dev/rhd0a` prints: 1166 7 0 65535 0 0 1166 26 This is on a working system. John Boteler uunet!cyclops!csense!bote -- No working paths available!
whofan@well.UUCP (Brian Lawrence Dear) (09/16/89)
Thanks everyone, for all the suggestions and comments concerning our 1024-limit-disk-saga. Here's the scoop: first of all, we don't care if DOS is on either the 90meg or 318meg drive. In fact, the big drive was formatted completely for XENIX. Divvy sez there are 308000+ blocks. Which is right. But I can't get at more than 198000 of 'em. So following numerous suggestions from Western Digital, AST, SCO, and other folks, I tried firing up DOS from the a: drive and running DEBUG. When I type g=c800:5 I get nothing. Everyone tells me I'm supposed to get a little program that lets me set translate modes etc. Well, I don't get such a program; rather I get a hung machine. Now, AST insists I have a WD1007-WAH controller chip on its AST ESDI controller. Isn't this DEBUG invocation supposed to work? Am I doing something wrong? Thanks in advance for your continued advice and suggestions. (Sorry to have created an international incident!! :-) -- brian l. dear coconut computing, inc. 7946 ivanhoe ave, suite 303 la jolla, ca 92037 619/456-2002 home of the COCONET(sm) on-line information service
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (09/16/89)
in article <245@bahamut.fsc.com>, jim@bahamut.fsc.com (James O'Connor) says: > Keywords: xenix, hard disk, cylinders, ESDI > Summary: I use MS-DOS and Xenix 2.3.1 on a 1224 clylinder disk > > I have a CDC ESDI drive with 1224 cylinders. I used a version of Disk Manager > that supports drives > 1024 clylinders to create > a DOS partition > 200 cylinders (I don't remember how many exactly) so that > the each of the two partitions (DOS and Xenix) were less than 1024 > cylinders. > > Then I installed DOS on the DOS partition, Xenix on the other and everything > works just dandy. Granted, when I run FDISK under DOS to look at the > partition table it reports funny numbers, but DIR still reports the 30MB or > so of space in the DOS partition. No problem for me. I did a similar tweek with a PRIAM 519 and a WD1006 using HARDRIVE.SYS from SpeedStor. I works fine but (1) I had to boot DOS from a floppy as 'dos' at the ':' prompt wouldn't find the area. (2) doscp wouldn't see the DOS partition on the disk. As a side note, OS/2 1.1's FDISK still has the silly 1024 limit. One wonders how much longer DOS will continue to anchor us down. (This is a rhetorical question, please don't waste net-bandwidth with a response) On the XENIX/DOS coexistence topic, lately, I've been running XENIX on a Toshiba MK156 (?) 147MB SCSI drive completely devoted to XENIX. I then do any DOS development work using VP/ix. There are a few minor quirks with the way VP/ix works, but overall this method of working seems to be working out fine. It also has the added advantage that all my DOS work gets backed up when I back up my XENIX work. John H. Lawitzke UUCP: Work: ...uunet!frith!dale1!jhl Dale Computer Corp., R&D Home: ...uunet!frith!dale1!ipecac!jhl 2367 Science Parkway Internet: jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu Okemos, MI, 48864 [35.8.8.108]
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/16/89)
> folks, I tried firing up DOS from the a: drive and running DEBUG. > When I type g=c800:5 I get nothing. Everyone tells me I'm supposed to > get a little program that lets me set translate modes etc. Well, I don't That address (c800:5) depends on if the bios on the controller is enabled, and if it is set for the primary or secondary address. -- Larry Snyder SCO Xenix 2.3.2 '386 uucp: iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry Computone Intelliport AT8 The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site HST / PEP / V.22 Notre Dame, Indiana USA Home of the fighting Irish!
bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) (09/18/89)
From article <5564@seac.UUCP>, by wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson): > ... To support and to have used, from my > perspective, are very different. That something 'works' has a different > meaning, as well. support: Santa Cruz Operation, The (the corporate entity) supports their operating systems only in computers utilizing drives whose cylinder count is 1024 or less. works: Several, including myself, have reported SCO releases working. For my part, this means that the systems perform as intended with no ill effects. 'to have used': I can only assume that if someone has used a system with the discussed parameters, it must have worked! -- Bote Old & Improved path!: uunet!comsea!csense!bote New & Improved path!: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!bote
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (09/19/89)
According to wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson): >SCO is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than >1024 cylinders. But this is insane! SCO Xenix/386 2.3 supports more than 1024 cylinders. We sell 1224-cylinder drives to our customers. We intend(ed) to upgrade our customers to SCO Unix eventually; but how can we do so if the drives won't work?! How could they possibly go _backwards_ like this, insisting all the while that SCO Unix is an _improvement_? I hope this is just a nightmare... -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." -- Fudd's First Law of Opposition
jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) (09/19/89)
One thing that bugs me about >1024 cylinder drives has not been brought up. Since hardware diagnostics (and several other sorts of utilities) work through the BIOS, they will stomp on the last cylinder of the drive as reported by the drive type. If the drive type has a limit of 1024, that's someplace mysterious towards the end of your disk. If the drive type has a limit greater than 1024, over the 10-bit limit of the BIOS, then it will wrap around to someplace mysterious in the beginning of your disk, in your swap space if you get lucky. --jh -- John Hood, Biar Games snail: 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 domain: jhood@biar.uu.net bang: anywhere!uunet!biar!jhood Looking for a OS hacking programming job in the Ithaca area...
ronald@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ronald Khoo) (09/21/89)
In article <251659CD.19953@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson): >>SCO is quite clear that SCO UNIX 3.2 does not support greater than >>1024 cylinders. >But this is insane! SCO Xenix/386 2.3 supports more than 1024 cylinders. That's what I thought as well, since it *works* (yeah, and under the 2.2.3 I'm typing at as well) but that's simply not true. Somewhere earlier along this thread someone commented that this was because messdoss/xenix coexistence couldn't be supported in such a case, so sco decided not to support *any* use of >1024 cyls. Agh. Note: *support*. Doesn't mean it don't work: just make sure that 1) you don't put messdos on the same disc, 2) change back down to a <= 1024 cyl disc before calling sco support. Arrgghh. Yep, Go look at your release notes "Some hard disks have more than 1024 cylinders. At this time, XENIX supports a maximum of 1024 cylinders." Sigh. Oi, Rosso, whatcha gonna do about this ? :-) -- Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ) Path: ...!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!ronald Phone: +44-1-863 1191 Fax: +44-1-863 6095 $Header: /users/ronald/.signature,v 1.1 89/09/03 23:36:16 ronald Exp $ :-)
vortex@charlie.OZ (Mark Gregson) (09/25/89)
Just to add my 5c worth to this interesting topic.
I run a Xenix system at home with a Priam V185
70 MB hard disk which for thos not in the know has
1166 cylinders. My Xenix is an 80286 version 2.2.1
and when starting the system up from scratch I told
xenix that I had a hard disk with 1166 cylinders.
Xenix proceeded to format the total 1166 cylinders
without a worry in the world.
I am using the standard WD 1006V-MM2 controller and
the setup is working fine
Regards, Mark Gregson