Xref: utzoo comp.unix.ultrix:6995 comp.unix.internals:2636 comp.unix.wizards:25123
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!jch
From: jch@hollie.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: rz55 parameters
Keywords: rz55
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.162744.14716@hollie.rdg.dec.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 16:27:44 GMT
References: <3198@bimacs.BITNET>
Sender: news@hollie.rdg.dec.com (Mr News)
Reply-To: jch@hollie.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 27


In article <3198@bimacs.BITNET>, yedidya@bimacs.BITNET (Yedidya Israel) writes:
|> 
|> My disktab states that rz55 have the following parameters:
|> 
|> rz55|RZ55|DEC RZ55 Winchester:\
|>         :ty=winchester:ns#36:nt#15:nc#1224:\
|>         :pc#649040:bc#8192:fc#1024:\
|> 
|> ns*nt*nc gets a totals of 660960 sectors which is not equal to pc#
|> (649040), a difference of 11920 sectors.

That's right..  But there are 10300 spare blocks
according to the book, so

	(ns.nt.nc) - 10300 = 649040

provided nc=1221 (the 1224 quoted appears to be the
number of tracks before formatting).

I got this information partly by experiment, partly by
looking at the specs in the 5000/200 appendices, so
I cannot guarantee that I am right.
-- 
John Haxby, Definitively Wrong.
Digital				<jch@wessex.rdg.dec.com>
Reading, England		<...!ukc!wessex!jch>