Aargh just realised,
Those nodes should've been 52, not 5.
So:
52.555 LABVAX
52.556 KUHAVX
52.600 DEB390
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:48, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Rok Vidmar wrote:
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
With Multinet you can run DECnet over TCP in the same
DECnet area.
--
Regards, Rok
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Yes, you are incorrect. There is nothing that requires an area here, and it just means you need to deal with a full blown DECnet stack, instead of a simpler endnode.
It might be worth understanding that there is nothing technical added by going to multiple areas. It is just a complication which allows you to have more nodes, but at the cost of more complex routing.
Even within one area, you can have a large number of hops between nodes. Makes no difference to DECnet. The rules for the topological layout is simple:
1. End-nodes needs to be adjacent to atleast one level 1 router.
2. All level 1 routers in an area must be able to talk with all other level 1 routers. And only level 1 routers route messages within an area, which means you cannot have an endnode in the chain.
The layout can be a star, a ring, a line, a combination, hybrid, or whatever. There are absolutely no topology that you can't have.
The type of links can also be anything. Ethernet, multidrop, point-to-point, or something weird. Makes no difference.
Ok, my bad, misunderstood the UDP Mutlinet tunnels :)
Drop that node and add DEB390 with the address 52.600 when you get the chance.
Sampsa
On 2012-08-10 11:42, Sampsa Laine wrote:
OK, my reasoning is this:
1. The z/Arch emulator hasn't got any ethenet support, just a CTC point to point link to the host
Area or not makes no difference for this.
2. I'll run MULTINET on both the Debian S/390 and the host
And? Another area makes no difference for this. (I thought Multinet was a TCP/IP stack in VMS... :-) )
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
Yes, you are incorrect. There is nothing that requires an area here, and it just means you need to deal with a full blown DECnet stack, instead of a simpler endnode.
It might be worth understanding that there is nothing technical added by going to multiple areas. It is just a complication which allows you to have more nodes, but at the cost of more complex routing.
Even within one area, you can have a large number of hops between nodes. Makes no difference to DECnet. The rules for the topological layout is simple:
1. End-nodes needs to be adjacent to atleast one level 1 router.
2. All level 1 routers in an area must be able to talk with all other level 1 routers. And only level 1 routers route messages within an area, which means you cannot have an endnode in the chain.
The layout can be a star, a ring, a line, a combination, hybrid, or whatever. There are absolutely no topology that you can't have.
The type of links can also be anything. Ethernet, multidrop, point-to-point, or something weird. Makes no difference.
Johnny
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:08, Sampsa Laine wrote:
5.555 LABVAX
5.556 KUHAVX
9.390 DEB390
Done (Although the area 9 thing is silly, and will probably just make your life harder).
Johnny
I'm talking about the DECNET for Linux MULTINET UDP tunnelling..
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Rok Vidmar wrote:
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
With Multinet you can run DECnet over TCP in the same
DECnet area.
--
Regards, Rok
OK, my reasoning is this:
1. The z/Arch emulator hasn't got any ethenet support, just a CTC point to point link to the host
2. I'll run MULTINET on both the Debian S/390 and the host
3. I assume I need an area for that, or am I incorrect?
Sampsa
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-08-10 09:08, Sampsa Laine wrote:
5.555 LABVAX
5.556 KUHAVX
9.390 DEB390
Done (Although the area 9 thing is silly, and will probably just make your life harder).
Johnny
On 2012-08-10 09:08, Sampsa Laine wrote:
5.555 LABVAX
5.556 KUHAVX
9.390 DEB390
Done (Although the area 9 thing is silly, and will probably just make your life harder).
Johnny
How was simh compiled? I used Visual C and the difference between running the compiler with optimization on or off made quite a difference for the generated code. And gcc might compile even faster codefiles.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:07:24
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Why is SIMH so slow though?
As far as I can understand, one MIPS is roughly one VUPS, correct?
So how come I get 14 VUPS on the same host running SIMH whilst my Hercules install peaks at 180?
Are the architectures that different (obviously they are) or what is it?
Sampsa
On 9 Aug 2012, at 23:04, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/09/2012 02:33 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
This seems like a natural for SIMH, since it already has a large
amount of necessary prerequisites (a lot of device emulation,
framework pieces, etc.).
There is Alpha support in the development track version of simh.
Is the architecture well enough defined in
publicly available documents? I would guess yes but I don't know for
sure. Are there secret bits that are critical and hard to obtain?
The architecture manual pretty fully documents it.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
If the "fiddling" is similar to what is necessary to run VMS on the white box alphas then have a look at
http://home.zonnet.nl/hvlems
The white box alphas were tergeted at the WNT market. Adding two srm parameters works wonders for VMS. It does not involve hardware mods and AFAIK the mods are completely reversible.
Hans
PS
Sent from my cell phone which will undoubtedly upset some systems. Sorry, I'm 600 kms from home.
-----Original Message-----
From: "John H. Reinhardt" <johnhreinhardt at yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:30:11
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation - 1U Alpha systems.
On 8/9/12 11:00 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/09/2012 10:54 PM, Gregg Levine wrote:
Dave did the Alpha family come in a 1U size?
Yes, the DS10L comes to mind. My HECnet node AXPEE:: is one of those.
They are EV6-based (nice and quick!) and are available clocked at
466MHz and 600MHz.
There are other 1U models, but that's the one I'm most familiar with.
If so could said system be considered to be a quiet one?
Eh, so-so.
