Wanted: RT-11 OS as a TU-58 image

[RSX11M+]

Congratulations.

Perhaps, when you feel confident enough, you could author and post an article on the process? Might help others who come after.

 

[NF6X]

I'd appreciate it if you could share your finished TU58 tape image. As I wrote in my other thread which you've already visited (thanks!), I should be following a similar path soon as I bring up my first PDP-11/44 system. It still remains to be seen how much pain it'll take to get to the point where I'm ready to try booting the system… but that's part of the fun!

 

[smp]

I'd appreciate it if you could share your finished TU58 tape image. As I wrote in my other thread which you've already visited (thanks!), I should be following a similar path soon as I bring up my first PDP-11/44 system. It still remains to be seen how much pain it'll take to get to the point where I'm ready to try booting the system… but that's part of the fun!

If you send me a PM with an e-mail address, I'd be glad to send you a .DSK image.

smp

 

[willyk]

SMP, I'm the owner of the site below RSX11M mentioned
http://www.willsworks.net/pdp11/tu58-emu.htm#IMAGES Another TU58 Maven to be aware of

I don't check this forum regularly, but am fond of PDP-11, RT-11, and tu58 tapes. If you haven't found what you need yet send me an email via the web site above. I summer fairly near you in Bradford, NH and dimly recall we have talked before. Definitely have some bootable images which I'd be happy to have you store in your offsite storage facility.

 

[AK6DN]

Another new development on the TU-58 emulator front. Have not seen this one before. Everything appears to be there (code,schematics) to clone the design for one's own use. And for those that want a standalone box (no PC required) it is ideal.

http://www.torok.info/computing/pdp11/tu58/index.htm

Don

 

[DDS]

As background, I have one PDP11/23+ with 2 RL02's in a refrigerator sized "Business Cabinet", parts of a PDP11/23 with a dual RX02 as parts on my bench (It used to be in a desk high box on wheels like the PDP11/03 recently on ebay), and an H11 with an H27 that was customized for me by United Parcel Smashers. Currently none of these are in a working state. I'm in the process of bringing the basket case /23 back to life. I have gotten as far as having a working relationship with ODT in a Hyperterm window in my test Windows box, and can send/receive characters from the "console" to another Hyperterm window on the same Windows machine. My next goal is to use some version of a TU58 emulator to bring up XXDP and find out why I can't get the RX02 system to behave. But I've hit a roadblock. There are always roadblocks. If this hobby was all smooth sailing we'd take up... well... sailing maybe.

My test windows PC is a Compaq Deskpro that I rescued from a dumpster. It has several positive attributes. It has two DB9 serial ports unlike many newer PC's that have one or zero. It also has a BIOS that supports 5 1/4 inch floppies. Many newer PC's don't. But it does have a problem. I spent this weekend trying to find some combination of an OS that would run on this not-really-IBM-compatible machine that would also run one of the several varieties of TU58 emulator floating around. The Compaq came to me with Windows NT 4.0 SP4. It has a sticker on it that says it will also run Windows 98 which I have running on it now. The Compaq website says some older Deskpro's could be flashed to a BIOS that supports XP, but not mine. So XP seems to be out of the question. Several varieties of Ubunto either froze during the install or resulted in some "orange screen of death" due to a not quite compatible video system. So I'm back to a healthy, functioning Windows 98 box with the "28 Start" prompt. TU58em and TU58ew both seem to need the version of the Windows API that started with XP. TU58 from Will's Works seems to want to run but requires a "TU58.INI" file. This site had an example of that file that looked something like this:

Port 1
Baud 9600
Irq 4

If I run TU58 with no .INI file I can successfully (?) create an empty TU58 image that is 262,144 bytes long by typing "tu58 -ctest1". While doing that it does complain "Error 1 in initialization file: tu58.ini". If I use notepad to build a file like the example above the error message changes to "Error 5 in initialization file: tu58.ini". I have tinkered with the contents of the file. If it is missing I get Error 1. If it exists, I get Error 5 regardless of any variation I make to the contents. In short, without seeing the source for Will's version to get an idea what tu58.ini is supposed to look like or what is provoking the error or getting some help from the folks on here I'm stuck.

 

[Marty]

Hi All;
DDS, I have the same file and Yours look correct..
But, what I would Do, is after You have saved it using "NotePad".. Then open up Your "Dos Box" and do a Directory where the .ini file lives.. make a note of that the Directory says the name of the file Is --- Something like TU58.ini.txt or some other absurd ending that "NotePad" put on it..
ReName it to Just --- TU58.ini and then it should be good to go..
The other possibility is the Irq number is wrong for Your PC System..
I was Wrong, I went and looked, and mine actually has the following ---

port 0
baud 9600,N,8,1
irq 4


THANK YOU Marty

 

[DDS]

I owe you one, Marty! I had the beginning of each line capitalized. FYI, in notepad when you open a file it defaults to "Text Documents" files. It also doesn't show you any files in a folder that don't end in ".txt". It also adds a ".txt" to every file name you create. You can override all of that by clicking the drop down arrow on the "Files of type" box so it opens an options menu that shows:

Text Documents
All Files (*.*)

Select the "All files" and it will now 1. Show you all the files in the folder and 2. not add the ".txt" to any file names you create.

 

[Marty]

Hi All;
I have tried to do what SMP has done with No success.. Here is what I am doing from an earlier posting of His..

"""" I created an empty TU-58 file with an RT-11 directory using the TU-58 emulator:

> tu58em -i test.dsk

I then took the test.dsk file and put it in the same folder as PUTR. I also put in a copy of the full RT-11 install disk image as RT11INST.dsk.

I opened a DOS window in Windows, and navigated into the PUTR folder, and started PUTR.

Here are the PUTR commands I used:

Code:
> SET COPY BINARY
> MOUNT RL0: RT11INST.DSK /RL02 /RT11
> MOUNT DD0: TEST.DSK /TU58 /RT11
> COPY RL0:RT11SJ.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:DU.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:DD.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0IP.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:DUP.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:DIR.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:STARTS.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:FORMAT.SYS DD0:
> COPY RL0:SWAP.SYS DD0:
> BOOT DD0:
MONITOR FILE: RT11SJ.SYS
DEVICE HANDLER FILE: DD.SYS
> DISMOUNT DD0:
> DISMOUNT RL0:
> EXIT
I then put a copy of my test.dsk file and the rt11inst.dsk file into the folder along with the TU-58 emulator.

I started the TU-58 emulator with the command:

tu58em -r test.dsk -r rt11inst.dsk -v -d

so I could see all the action on the emulator laptop computer that is attached to my PDP-11/23 system.

I started up the PDP-11/23 system, as well as my SCSI drives, typed in the ODT info to boot (XXDP) from the SCSI disk (because it's only a few commands vs. the boot code for the TU-58 emulator) and got XXDP up and running on my PDP-11/23 system.

Then, I typed the command:

. BOOT DD0:

and when I hit return, I saw the TU-58 emulator come to life and start transmitting stuff to the PDP-11/23 system!

After a while, the TU-58 emulator stopped, and the PDP-11/23 console screen showed a complaint about a missing or improper TT.SYS file. And it was at the . prompt. Who knew? That file did not jump out at me as maybe being necessary in a tiny minimal RT-11 system.

I went back to PUTR, and I added the TT.SYS file into my test.dsk file.

On the next attempt to boot the PDP-11/23 system from the TU-58 emulator using my test.dsk file, I was greeted with:

. BOOT DD0:

RT-11SJ V05.03

""""

When I open Putr and try to do the same thing, it complains (1) that it "Isn't confirmed" and (2) no drive..
When I use Putr do I need the actual Drives like RL0 and DD0.. Or is it created like on my C: drive as a separate file or in Memory ??

THANK YOU Marty

 

[smp]

I have tried to do what SMP has done with No success.. Here is what I am doing from an earlier posting of His..

< copy of what smp did previously snipped out >

When I open Putr and try to do the same thing, it complains (1) that it "Isn't confirmed" and (2) no drive..
When I use Putr do I need the actual Drives like RL0 and DD0.. Or is it created like on my C: drive as a separate file or in Memory ??

THANK YOU Marty

Hi Marty,

Did you try to do exactly what I wrote? Could you post the commands that you typed in?

Do you have a file named RT11INST.DSK which is a copy of the contents of an RL02 disk pack with all the RT-11 files in it?

Do you have a file named TEST.DSK which is an empty TU-58 tape file ready to accept the files you are trying to copy into it?

I never encountered the error messages that you indicated, so I am a bit at a loss for how to help. Please tell us exactly what you have done and how you did it and where the error messages occurred, and I will try to help as best as I can.

I found that having all the files in the same directory along with PUTR was the best way to go, or else I got "file not found" errors.

smp

 

[Marty]

Hi All;
SMP, I was afraid that, that posting was getting long enough..
I did as far as I know do exactly as you showed.. I have all the files in one place..
I will rerun Putr and save a screen shot, so everyone can look at it..

PUTR V2.01 Copyright (C) 1995-2001 by John Wilson <wilson@dbit.com>.
All rights reserved. See www.dbit.com for other DEC-related software.

COPY mode is ASCII, SET COPY BINARY to change
(C:\PUTR)>SET COPY BINARY
(C:\PUTR)>DIR

Volume in drive C has no label
Directory of C:\PUTR\*.*

. <DIR> 25-Feb-2014 21:26:50
.. <DIR> 25-Feb-2014 21:26:50
BA-P73~1.DSK 505856 13-Feb-2014 15:30:02
DUNSRC .DSK 715776 19-Feb-2014 19:40:04
PUTR-NEW.COM 44264 19-Feb-2014 19:40:04
PUTR-OLD.COM 44126 26-Feb-2014 04:54:30
PUTR-O~1.COM 29086 26-Feb-2014 04:54:40
PUTR .TXT 45316 19-Feb-2014 19:40:04
RSTS_F~1.DSK 5235200 08-Jun-1998 13:09:12
RSTS_M~1.DSK 5235200 09-Jun-1998 12:22:04
RSX11M~1.DSK 5243087 09-Nov-1997 11:19:48
RT11INST.DSK 1969850368 26-Feb-2014 08:14:48
RT11IN~1.DSK 1969850368 26-Feb-2014 05:39:46
RT54F .DSK 2457600 13-Feb-2014 15:28:14
RTV4_RK .DSK 1672704 18-Mar-1997 12:32:10
TEST .DSK 262144 26-Feb-2014 05:27:52
16 files 3961191095 bytes
530075648 bytes free

(C:\PUTR)>MOUNT RL0: RT11INST.DSK /RL02 /RT11
(C:\PUTR)>MOUNT DD0: TEST.DSK /TU58 /RT11
(C:\PUTR)>COPY RL0: RT11SJ.SYS DD0:
?Not confirmed
(C})> (I DID A "CR" HERE)
(invalid drive)>


THANK YOU Marty

 

[Marty]

Hi All;
SMP, and here is the other screen shot..

PUTR V2.01 Copyright (C) 1995-2001 by John Wilson <wilson@dbit.com>.
All rights reserved. See www.dbit.com for other DEC-related software.

COPY mode is ASCII, SET COPY BINARY to change
(C:\PUTR)>SET COPY BINARY
(C:\PUTR)>MOUNT DD0: RT11INST.DSK /TU58 /RT11
(C:\PUTR)>BOOT DD0:
Writing bootstrap on DD0:\

Monitor file [.SYS]: RT11SJ.SYS
%Not found
Monitor file [.SYS]:

THANK YOU Marty

 

[smp]

Hi Marty,

The only thing I see here is in your directory listing, your file test .dsk has a space at the end.
Could it be that when you mounted test.dsk (without a space) you have confused PUTR?

Like I said, I have not encountered this error.

smp

 

[smp]

Hi All;
SMP, and here is the other screen shot..

PUTR V2.01 Copyright (C) 1995-2001 by John Wilson <wilson@dbit.com>.
All rights reserved. See www.dbit.com for other DEC-related software.

COPY mode is ASCII, SET COPY BINARY to change
(C:\PUTR)>SET COPY BINARY
(C:\PUTR)>MOUNT DD0: RT11INST.DSK /TU58 /RT11
(C:\PUTR)>BOOT DD0:
Writing bootstrap on DD0:\

Monitor file [.SYS]: RT11SJ.SYS
%Not found
Monitor file [.SYS]:

THANK YOU Marty

Hi Marty,

What I suggest is after you have mounted the RT11INST.DSK file, perform a directory command on it:

(C:\PUTR)>DIR DD0:

When the directory prints out, you should be able to see the file RT11SJ.SYS in there. If you do not, that is why you are getting the "not found" error.

smp

 

[Marty]

Hi All;
SMP, Great I will try that..
For all intents and purposes it was Blank !!!
So, I will Delete it and recopy the necessary files.. And try again..
THANK YOU Marty

 

[NF6X]

Any accurate TU-58 emulator MUST support "oversize" images (meaning larger than a classic 512 block TU-58 cartridge). The TU-58 device protocol architecture allows up to 64K blocks of 512 bytes (32MB total) and this is fully supported by TU58EM. You could mount a 32MB image on TU58EM if you desire ... the gotcha is on the DEC PDP-11 side where TU-58 device drivers "know" that any TU-58 in existence is at most 512 blocks. So "oversize" TU-58 images all require modified DEC PDP-11 side drivers.

I've found a modified version of DD.SYS (the TU58 device handler in RT-11) in which the device size entry has been increased to the size of an RL02 pack. I've been studying some manuals, and I've found the DD.SYS source code in the file DD.MAC file that's part of the RT-11 v5.3 image that I have. I've determined that I can assemble and link DD.MAC and get the exact same binary. I've learned that modifying a field in the .DRDEF macro invocation adjusts the device size entry in the device handler. So, I think I'm well on my way to understanding how to patch existing device handlers to support nonstandard device sizes, but I still have a couple of questions that I hope that folks can help me with:

1) Do I need to have the handler's device size adjusted to the size of an RL02 pack in order to use an RL02 image with a TU58 emulator, or can I patch the handler to support the largest possible device supported by the TU58's protocol and then mix and match tape image sizes as I see fit?

2) Since the device handler's device size field is a block count rather than a maximum block number, and a size entry of 0 is used for non-random-access devices like conventional magtapes, does that mean that the maximum usable size of an emulated TU58 image under RT-11 is 65535 blocks (32 megabytes minus 512 bytes), even though the TU58's protocol should allow the 65536th block to be addressed?

 

[smp]

Hi NF6X,

Don told me long ago that, if you are only looking to READ a xyz.DSK file, no special DD.SYS is necessary. The TU-58 emulator will allow you to mount any size image. It is only when you wish to WRITE to the TU-58 emulator and you anticipate writing more than the 256K word limit, then you will need the special DD.SYS file.

So, if you are only looking to copy files up onto your system, you can mount an xyz.DSK image that can be far larger than 256K words.

I hope this helps...

smp

 

[AK6DN]

Hi NF6X,

Don told me long ago that, if you are only looking to READ a xyz.DSK file, no special DD.SYS is necessary. The TU-58 emulator will allow you to mount any size image. It is only when you wish to WRITE to the TU-58 emulator and you anticipate writing more than the 256K word limit, then you will need the special DD.SYS file.

So, if you are only looking to copy files up onto your system, you can mount an xyz.DSK image that can be far larger than 256K words.

I hope this helps...

smp

This is the case, but with some caveats. For XXDP (at least) there are TWO different low level master file directory structures (MFD1 and MFD1/2). Most of the smaller DEC disks use the first format, but notably the RL01/2 use the second. This means that you CANNOT mount an XXDP RL02 drive image on TU58 drive 1 and access it from a TU58 image booted on drive 0. It won't know how to find the RL02 directory, since it is looking in the wrong blocks (because of the MFD issue).

RT-11 I believe is different, the MFD is always located at the same place on every logical block device, so mounting an RT-11 RL02 image on TU58 drive 1, and accessing it from a RT-11 TU58 image booted on drive 0, will work. Or so I have heard, I have not done this myself, so YMMV.

Don

 

[NF6X]

It's good to know that the DD.SYS driver modification is only needed for writing. I want read/write access to the oversized emulated TU58 images, because that seems like a convenient way to get information off of media that I have and archived on my modern machine. I have a bunch of RX02 floppies with unknown contents that I want to dump and archive.

 

[NF6X]

2) Since the device handler's device size field is a block count rather than a maximum block number, and a size entry of 0 is used for non-random-access devices like conventional magtapes, does that mean that the maximum usable size of an emulated TU58 image under RT-11 is 65535 blocks (32 megabytes minus 512 bytes), even though the TU58's protocol should allow the 65536th block to be addressed?

I think I've found an answer to this in a footnote in the RT–11 Volume and File Formats Manual for version 5.6 regarding block numbers on partitioned volumes. It says that RT-11 supports a maximum filesystem size of 65535 blocks, with one wasted block at the end of each maximum-sized partition:

Although RT–11 block numbers can be 0 through 177777[SUB]8[/SUB], or a total of 65,536[SUB]10[/SUB] blocks (200000[SUB]8[/SUB], or 000000 in 16 bits since the 17th bit is lost), the size of a partition is defined as 65,535[SUB]10[/SUB] blocks (177777[SUB]8[/SUB]), with RT–11 block numbers 0 through 177776. This avoids the problem of 16-bit overflow when dealing with the partition size. Because the partition number is added onto the left of the RT–11 block number to give the MSCP block number, one block between each partition is unused.