“0x0” — Fediverse search results on home.social

0x10f/kalle/qalle @[email protected] · 2025-02-15 · 09:12 UTC

(continued)
How I found the Game Genie codes using FCEUX:
1) By looking at the CHR ROM, I knew I wanted to use tile 0xd2 instead of 0x0a and 0xd7 instead of 0x0e.
2) I looked at RAM in Hex Editor. A copy of sprite data was at 0x0700-0x07ff. The cursor was in the 2nd sprite slot, so the tile was at 0x0705.
3) I set a breakpoint on 0x0705 write in Debugger. It found STA $0701,X. The previous instruction was LDA ($00),Y. Whenever that was run, RAM 0x00 contained 0x98 or 0x9d, RAM 0x01 contained 0xd8 and Y was 1, so a byte was being copied to A from RAM 0xd899 or 0xd89e.
4) Indeed, during gameplay, CPU address 0xd899 contained 0x0a and 0xd89e contained 0x0e.
5) I used https://www.nesdev.org/nesgg.txt to create the codes:
- XSOSOEZA = "if the CPU tries to read a PRG ROM address that's currently mapped to CPU 0xd899 and contains 0x0a, return 0xd2 instead".
- NSOSVETA = same but 0xd89e, 0x0e and 0xd7, respectively.
#NES #gameHacking #GameGenie

#gamegenie #gamehacking #nes

Harry Sintonen @[email protected] · 2025-02-10 · 11:47 UTC

So, it seems that my 2.5 yo Seagate Exos X20 drives are reporting some quite insane read amounts:

Device Statistics (GP Log 0x04)
Page Offset Size Value Flags Description
0x01 ===== = = === == General Statistics (rev 1) ==
0x01 0x008 4 24 --- Lifetime Power-On Resets
0x01 0x010 4 22429 --- Power-on Hours
0x01 0x018 6 76426225523 --- Logical Sectors Written
0x01 0x020 6 667681744 --- Number of Write Commands
0x01 0x028 6 48054400526096 --- Logical Sectors Read
0x01 0x030 6 2915801075 --- Number of Read Commands

If those numbers would be correct that'd mean the drive would have been reading average 304 MB/s for the whole 2.5 year lifetime. I find this somewhat implausible. The drives max out around 285 MB/s with sequential read.

Did I hear "But surely Seagate's own openSeaChest drive utilities are better and report the correct values!" from the crowd?

Here's the relevant part from openSeaChest_Info -i:

Annualized Workload Rate (TB/yr): 9624.71
Total Bytes Read (PB): 24.60
Total Bytes Written (TB): 39.13

So, equally confused.

EDIT: Earlier I confused some numbers due to PB vs PiB being so different.

#Seagate #Exos #datastorage #hardware

#seagate #exos #datastorage #hardware

Harry Sintonen @[email protected] · 2025-02-10 · 11:47 UTC

So, it seems that my 2.5 yo Seagate Exos X20 drives are reporting some quite insane read amounts:

Device Statistics (GP Log 0x04)
Page Offset Size Value Flags Description
0x01 ===== = = === == General Statistics (rev 1) ==
0x01 0x008 4 24 --- Lifetime Power-On Resets
0x01 0x010 4 22429 --- Power-on Hours
0x01 0x018 6 76426225523 --- Logical Sectors Written
0x01 0x020 6 667681744 --- Number of Write Commands
0x01 0x028 6 48054400526096 --- Logical Sectors Read
0x01 0x030 6 2915801075 --- Number of Read Commands

If those numbers would be correct that'd mean the drive would have been reading average 304 MB/s for the whole 2.5 year lifetime. I find this somewhat implausible. The drives max out around 285 MB/s with sequential read.

Did I hear "But surely Seagate's own openSeaChest drive utilities are better and report the correct values!" from the crowd?

Here's the relevant part from openSeaChest_Info -i:

Annualized Workload Rate (TB/yr): 9624.71
Total Bytes Read (PB): 24.60
Total Bytes Written (TB): 39.13

So, equally confused.

EDIT: Earlier I confused some numbers due to PB vs PiB being so different.

#Seagate #Exos #datastorage #hardware

#seagate #exos #datastorage #hardware

Harry Sintonen @[email protected] · 2025-02-10 · 11:47 UTC

So, it seems that my 2.5 yo Seagate Exos X20 drives are reporting some quite insane read amounts:

Device Statistics (GP Log 0x04)
Page Offset Size Value Flags Description
0x01 ===== = = === == General Statistics (rev 1) ==
0x01 0x008 4 24 --- Lifetime Power-On Resets
0x01 0x010 4 22429 --- Power-on Hours
0x01 0x018 6 76426225523 --- Logical Sectors Written
0x01 0x020 6 667681744 --- Number of Write Commands
0x01 0x028 6 48054400526096 --- Logical Sectors Read
0x01 0x030 6 2915801075 --- Number of Read Commands

If those numbers would be correct that'd mean the drive would have been reading average 304 MB/s for the whole 2.5 year lifetime. I find this somewhat implausible. The drives max out around 285 MB/s with sequential read.

Did I hear "But surely Seagate's own openSeaChest drive utilities are better and report the correct values!" from the crowd?

Here's the relevant part from openSeaChest_Info -i:

Annualized Workload Rate (TB/yr): 9624.71
Total Bytes Read (PB): 24.60
Total Bytes Written (TB): 39.13

So, equally confused.

EDIT: Earlier I confused some numbers due to PB vs PiB being so different.

#Seagate #Exos #datastorage #hardware

#seagate #exos #datastorage #hardware

Harry Sintonen @[email protected] · 2025-02-10 · 11:47 UTC

So, it seems that my 2.5 yo Seagate Exos X20 drives are reporting some quite insane read amounts:

Device Statistics (GP Log 0x04)
Page Offset Size Value Flags Description
0x01 ===== = = === == General Statistics (rev 1) ==
0x01 0x008 4 24 --- Lifetime Power-On Resets
0x01 0x010 4 22429 --- Power-on Hours
0x01 0x018 6 76426225523 --- Logical Sectors Written
0x01 0x020 6 667681744 --- Number of Write Commands
0x01 0x028 6 48054400526096 --- Logical Sectors Read
0x01 0x030 6 2915801075 --- Number of Read Commands

If those numbers would be correct that'd mean the drive would have been reading average 304 MB/s for the whole 2.5 year lifetime. I find this somewhat implausible. The drives max out around 285 MB/s with sequential read.

Did I hear "But surely Seagate's own openSeaChest drive utilities are better and report the correct values!" from the crowd?

Here's the relevant part from openSeaChest_Info -i:

Annualized Workload Rate (TB/yr): 9624.71
Total Bytes Read (PB): 24.60
Total Bytes Written (TB): 39.13

So, equally confused.

EDIT: Earlier I confused some numbers due to PB vs PiB being so different.

#Seagate #Exos #datastorage #hardware

#hardware #datastorage #exos #seagate

Tim Chase @[email protected] · 2025-01-22 · 22:21 UTC

@b0rk Not only have I had this situation, I also have the reverse on my OpenBSD box, where pressing backspace inside tmux sends a control+h (0x08), so to actually backspace I need to type control+backspace (0x7F)