HECnet December 2012

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

43 participants
1079 discussions

by sampsa＠mac.com

On 31 Dec 2012, at 21:50, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: Ohhhh, just did a 'file' on the binary I've been using (it worked so didn't feel the need to compile a new one): bash-3.2$ file simh-vax simh-vax: Mach-O executable i386 Huh. 32-bit binary on 64-bit OS vs native 64 bit binary on the Linux VM's. BTW, at 20 VUPS, SSH2 is almost usable. sampsa

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by b4＠gewt.net

On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:47, sampsa at mac.com wrote: 3.7-1 on OS X, 3.9 on the Linux ones - might explain the difference. Yeah, that might. ;) Ohhhh, just did a 'file' on the binary I've been using (it worked so didn't feel the need to compile a new one): bash-3.2$ file simh-vax simh-vax: Mach-O executable i386 Huh. In any case, I don't mind the overhead of the small Linux VM underneath them and they will soon all be on a large-ish server in a colo rack as I sell my apartment. Sampsa might leave London, but SAMPSACOM stays behind :) The large-ish server should definitely help. ;) sampsa On 31 Dec 2012, at 21:41, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:40, sampsa at mac.com wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:46, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? 10.7.5 (Darwin 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64) and 10.6.8 (10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:32:41 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Interesting. Which version of SIMH and do you remember to SET CPU IDLE? -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by sampsa＠mac.com

And yes set cpu idle was specified on both, in fact the ini files are identical except for network adapter name changes. sampsa On 31 Dec 2012, at 21:41, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:40, sampsa at mac.com wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:46, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? 10.7.5 (Darwin 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64) and 10.6.8 (10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:32:41 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Interesting. Which version of SIMH and do you remember to SET CPU IDLE? -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by sampsa＠mac.com

3.7-1 on OS X, 3.9 on the Linux ones - might explain the difference. Ohhhh, just did a 'file' on the binary I've been using (it worked so didn't feel the need to compile a new one): bash-3.2$ file simh-vax simh-vax: Mach-O executable i386 In any case, I don't mind the overhead of the small Linux VM underneath them and they will soon all be on a large-ish server in a colo rack as I sell my apartment. Sampsa might leave London, but SAMPSACOM stays behind :) sampsa On 31 Dec 2012, at 21:41, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:40, sampsa at mac.com wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:46, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? 10.7.5 (Darwin 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64) and 10.6.8 (10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:32:41 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Interesting. Which version of SIMH and do you remember to SET CPU IDLE? -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by b4＠gewt.net

On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:40, sampsa at mac.com wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:46, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? 10.7.5 (Darwin 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64) and 10.6.8 (10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:32:41 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Interesting. Which version of SIMH and do you remember to SET CPU IDLE? -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by sampsa＠mac.com

On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:46, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote: On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? 10.7.5 (Darwin 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64) and 10.6.8 (10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:32:41 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

11 years, 4 months

SIMH performance on OS X vs Linux

by b4＠gewt.net

On 31 Dec 2012, at 08:26, sampsa at mac.com wrote: I noticed that Linux SIMH is about twice as fast on OS X. KUHAVX got about 12 VUPS when running natively on a Core i5 iMac, 24 when in a Linux VM on the same hardware. Pretty weird. Really? I've gotten 20 VUPS on both. Which version of OS X? sampsa -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff! http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.

11 years, 4 months

Funky file formats, et al...

by bob＠jfcl.com

> The thing is, the file isn t Stream-CR it s Stream-LF P.S. Anybody with a VMS system can see for themselves $ analyze/rms LEGATO::INFO.TXT;1 Bob

11 years, 4 months

Funky file formats, et al...

by bob＠jfcl.com

There s something else going on here. I m not sure who originally analyzed the file to decide that the format was Stream-CR (although given that the analysis was done on RSX, we can probably guess :-) >On 2012-12-31 14:59, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote: >> Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes: >> >>> On 2012-12-31 08:08, sampsa at mac.com wrote: >>>> Funny thing about LEGATO's INFO.TXT - my parser looks for the .BEGIN-HECNET-INFO tag and deletes all text after that. >>>> >>>> I should probably make a manual HLP file for LEGATO, Bob you OK with that? >>> >>> LEGATO's INFO.TXT have real yucky file attributes and a real yucky >>> file format. :-) (What on earth was used to produce it???) >> >> Stream_CR typically surfaces with files coming from WEENDOZE. > >Ah. Yes, that would be a possible, source, I guess. But I find Stream_CR a but surprising. > Maybe I'm just too ignorant of VMS formats here. But isn't there a plain Stream as well > (which also exists in RSX), in which records are terminated by CR+LF, and which is what > I would expect a Windows machine to produce... > >>> Directory LEGATO::SYS$SPECIFIC:[FAL$SERVER] >>> 31-DEC-12 13:59:07 >>> >>> INFO.TXT;1 >>> Size: 8./35. Created: 08-JUL-10 10:54:52 >>> Owner: [000376,000373] Revised: >>> 27-DEC-12 19:24:34(6.) >>> Expires: <none_specified> >>> File protection: System:RE, Owner:RE, Group:RE, World:RE >>> File organization: Sequential >>> File attributes: Allocation=0 >>> Record format: Stream-CR, no maximum defined >>> Record attributes: Carriage return >> The thing is, the file isn t Stream-CR it s Stream-LF $ dir info.txt;1 Directory SYS$SPECIFIC:[FAL$SERVER] INFO.TXT;1 8/35 8-JUL-2010 10:54:52.34 [DECNET,FA (RE,RE,RE,RE) $ analyze/rms info.txt;1 ... RMS FILE ATTRIBUTES File Organization: sequential Record Format: stream-LF Record Attributes: carriage-return Maximum Record Size: 0 Longest Record: 174 ... The analysis uncovered NO errors. ANA/RMS INFO.TXT;1 So the stuff about Stream-CR is bogus and a red herring, and I don t know why Sampsa had trouble. Bob

11 years, 4 months

INFO.TXT, was Re: [HECnet] UPDATE: HECNET.HLP file for VMS systems

by system＠TMESIS.COM

"Bob Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com> writes: I'm not convinced that a '$ CONVERT/FDL="record; format stream_lf"' would handle that file's contents correctly. I'm pretty sure it will. Bob, could you try? Yes, CONVERT on VMS is perfectly happy to convert the original file. FWIW, that's how I created the "conventional" variable record length version that RSX likes too. Then, it *WAS* a Stream_CR file! And FWIW, on VMS even EDT has no issues editing the original file. And also, ANALYZE/RMS finds no errors in the original file's format or contents. DUMP/RECORD on the original file shows this Dump of file SYS$SPECIFIC:[FAL$SERVER]INFO.TXT;1 on 31-DEC-2012 09:58:05.44 File ID (2388,686,0) End of file block 8 / Allocated 35 Record number 1 (00000001), 31 (001F) bytes, RFA(0001,0000,0000) 20532745 45424544 20444E41 20424F42 BOB AND DEBEE'S 000000 454741 52414720 52455455 504D4F43 COMPUTER GARAGE. 000010 OK. This record is runs from RFA 1,0,0 to 1,0,1E. Record number 2 (00000002), 31 (001F) bytes, RFA(0001,0000,0020) This record startes at RFA 1,0,20. Thus, there's a byte amiss. That'd be the <CR>. This record goes from 1,0,20 to 1,0,3E. 2D2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D ---------------- 000000 2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D 2D2D2D2D ---------------. 000010 Record number 3 (00000003), 0 (0000) bytes, RFA(0001,0000,0040) Record 3 starts at 1,0,40. So, it looks like 1,0,3F is a <CR>. Record number 4 (00000004), 79 (004F) bytes, RFA(0001,0000,0041) 6F6E2065 68742073 69207369 68542020 This is the no 000000 65727275 63202C4F 54414745 4C206564 de LEGATO, curre 000010 6F697461 74735841 56206120 796C746E ntly a VAXstatio 000020 696E6E75 7220434C 562F3030 30342D6E n-4000/VLC runni 000030 6E6920 2C312E37 20534D56 4F20676E ng OVMS 7.1, in. 000040 Record number 5 (00000005), 78 (004E) bytes, RFA(0001,0000,0091) 20732765 65626544 20646E61 20626F42 Bob and Debee's 000000 20656761 72614720 72657475 706D6F43 Computer Garage 000010 4820746E 656D6572 69746552 20646E61 and Retirement H 000020 20434544 20646C6F 20726F66 20656D6F ome for old DEC 000030 7449 20202E73 72657475 706D6F63 computers. It.. 000040 ... which doesn't show any extra LFs or CRs in the file, but I guess that doesn't prove anything if you believe that RMS is silently eating them. Although, ... you can see from the RFAs that there's only one "overhead" byte between the records, so whatever the end of record character is, there's only one. Correct. I thought there was a way to get DUMP to dump the raw blocks in the file and bypass RMS completely, but I can't find it anymore. $ DUMP/BLOCKS If you do, I'll wager you'll see a 0D at the locations I've indicated. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

11 years, 4 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet December 2012