flash (or ide) storage for unibus 11?
cisin at xenosoft.com
Sun Nov 29 00:23:22 CST 2015
>> WD style: no problem with index pulse timing relative to data NEC765
>> style: index pulse is necessary during LLF, but may need to be
>> blocked during read/write, although a few of the newest drives may
>> not be happy without index.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> 765/8272 are particularly bad in this respect (they're blind for a full
> millisecond or so) in contrast with 765A/8272A, which chopped the blind spot
> by half.
> In the 8272 days, I added a one-shot to delay the blind spot by a varying
> amount, which solved the problem neatly, while still allowing the index to
> pass through.
> The index is also needed for WD17/27 family controllers also for LLF. Ya
> gotta start (and end) somewhere.
Need index for LLF, but not necessarily for read/write, albeit with a few
> If you simply block index with the 765 type FDC, you'll never get a "sector
> not found" error--if you have a deadman timer, it'll expire.
Exactly. It will time out, and get a time-out error instead of the
requested sector not found.
More information about the cctech