On 2014-05-20 23:25, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I would not think so. If you have a device driver for something that
there is no hardware for, the device should just become offline.
That's what I was thinking...but for the sake of troubleshooting it
stayed on the table.
Fair enough. But no, RSX should deal fine with a device not actually being there.
Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in
all your answers... :-)
I'll grab the log when back at my desk.
That could help. :-)
https://ghostbin.com/paste/zo8dc
Ok. So the only funny thing in here is that it is detecting a device at CSR 160404. Autoconfiguration says it should be a tape controller, but I suspect it is not... :-)
However, since you later configure the tape controller to another address anyway, there shouldn't even be anything poking at that device, so I would not expect it to cause any trouble...
Could you paste the result of the output from the SYSGEN as well. There are some other bits that can be interested later on.
What garbage that might be left in memory should not be a problem.
Memory always have content...
Mmm. right. I'm out of ideas then.
We need to learn more... :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Looks like I just found the RSX-11M+ 4.3 distrib. tape image. Set SIMH to an 11/23 with 1M (non-plus, it identified as a plus to AUTOCONFIGURE though)
150 IMAGE Store of MOIRA$DKA100:[CSMELOSKY]RSX11MPLUS43.DSK;1 started.
Ready to shove the SCSI controller in my VAX and do the copy!
Wish me luck!
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 05/20/2014 04:52 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Didn't you advise me against running M+ on an 11/24 for reasons of no
split I/D space? It's not that it won't work, it's that it won't be
pleasant. M (non +) runs great on F11-based systems anyway.
I don't know (remember) what I might have said. But depending on
different things, running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 can be a little
painful. But running 11M in general is more painful than M+ anyway, so I
would at least recommend trying M+.
Well, I have a personal desire to run M...I ran it for many years
25-30 years ago, and I like it. I've never had much experience with M+.
I will definitely run M+ on the machines I have that are capable of
running it, though.
(That said, without split I/D-space, you'll have preciously little pool
space, but that might not be a big issue for you right here.)
I think that was why.
Yeah. Without supervisor mode and split I/D-space, you will have very
little system pool. If you are not running a bunch of things on the
system, you should still be able to survive though.
Oh, and my TCP/IP will not work on those systems.
THAT was it, I wanted to run your IP stack. I ended up setting it up
(the OS, not yet your IP stack) on an 11/44 instead.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
pleasant. M (non +) runs great on F11-based systems anyway.
I don't know (remember) what I might have said. But depending on different things, running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 can be a little painful. But running 11M in general is more painful than M+ anyway, so I would at least recommend trying M+.
The baseline of M+ (4.6) doesn't even boot on non-split processors in simh.
(That said, without split I/D-space, you'll have preciously little pool
space, but that might not be a big issue for you right here.)
I think that was why.
Yeah. Without supervisor mode and split I/D-space, you will have very little system pool. If you are not running a bunch of things on the system, you should still be able to survive though.
Oh, and my TCP/IP will not work on those systems.
So long as I can still run DECnet i'll be fine.
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I would not think so. If you have a device driver for something that there is no hardware for, the device should just become offline.
That's what I was thinking...but for the sake of troubleshooting it stayed on the table.
Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in all your answers... :-)
I'll grab the log when back at my desk.
That could help. :-)
https://ghostbin.com/paste/zo8dc
What garbage that might be left in memory should not be a problem. Memory always have content...
Mmm. right. I'm out of ideas then.
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
The fact that you managed to boot the baseline system and run a sysgen suggests that things are running pretty well...
Yeah. That's what I was thinking.
Also possible the file I should've BOOted was named after the name I
gave the system.
No, the output file is RSX11M.SYS, which should have booted ok unless you actually configured it for hardware you do not have...
Huh. I wonder why it failed then...
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-05-20 21:40, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/20/2014 10:55 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Back to trying RSX-11M 4.8. That's 100M and doubtful it'll complain.
Unless you want to feel the pain (or the joy) of manually defining
memory partitions, I'd suggest you to go PLUS :)
Can't! No Split I&D.
M+ do not need split I/D-space. But you do need 512K of memory. But the
11/23 and 11/24 are supported CPUs.
Didn't you advise me against running M+ on an 11/24 for reasons of no
split I/D space? It's not that it won't work, it's that it won't be
pleasant. M (non +) runs great on F11-based systems anyway.
I don't know (remember) what I might have said. But depending on different things, running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 can be a little painful. But running 11M in general is more painful than M+ anyway, so I would at least recommend trying M+.
(That said, without split I/D-space, you'll have preciously little pool
space, but that might not be a big issue for you right here.)
I think that was why.
Yeah. Without supervisor mode and split I/D-space, you will have very little system pool. If you are not running a bunch of things on the system, you should still be able to survive though.
Oh, and my TCP/IP will not work on those systems.
Johnny
On 2014-05-20 21:39, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/20/2014 11:04 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
M+ do not need split I/D-space. But you do need 512K of memory. But
the 11/23 and 11/24 are supported CPUs.
I have 1M of memory.
Sure you're not confusing the 11/23 with the 11/23+? I was poking at
4.6M+'s SYSGEN and it wouldn't accept 11/23 as an answer.
The difference between the 11/23 and 11/23+ is the amount of memory. The
original 11/23 could not go above 256K... If you have more, then you
actually have an 11/23+.
In practice, though, the vast majority of systems out there that say
"PDP-11/23" (not -PLUS) on the front are in fact capable of 22-bit
addressing; you've gotta look at the etch rev of the CPU board. See my
other email.
Aha. Thanks for the information, Dave. I knew that very few 11/23 systems really were limited to 18 bits, but I didn't know exactly which ones. So even the M8186 boards are mostly 22-bit. Really nice to know.
Johnny
On 2014-05-20 20:08, Cory Smelosky wrote:
boo [1,54]rsx11m
SYSTEM CRASH AT LOCATION 014402
REGISTERS
R0=000002 R1=120550 R2=000000 R3=120546
R4=120744 R5=031610 SP=117772 PS=020010
SYSTEM STACK DUMP
LOCATION CONTENTS
117772 000004
001344
That is a very weird and unexpected stack pointer. RSX normally have the stack in rather low addresses.
Wonder if it's related to the tape controller that isn't actually technically present.
I would not think so. If you have a device driver for something that there is no hardware for, the device should just become offline.
Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in all your answers... :-)
I'll grab the log when back at my desk.
That could help. :-)
After reboot:
boo [1.54]rsx11m
MCR -- Task not in system
ins $boo
boo [1,54]rsx11,\,\m
[no output]
I seem to be TERRIBLE and SYSGEN.
Well, since the initial boot failed, any subsequent boots of that image I would expect to fail equally bad.
It could have been unclean memory at some random address. This system also tends to randomly crash on first-time boots, too sometimes. A couple halts and it usually works then.
What garbage that might be left in memory should not be a problem. Memory always have content...
Johnny
On 2014-05-20 19:52, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Well, I'm just not having ANY luck with this...
...
SYSTEM CRASH AT LOCATION 014402
REGISTERS
R0=000002 R1=120550 R2=000000 R3=120546
R4=120744 R5=031610 SP=117772 PS=020010
...
I seem to be TERRIBLE and SYSGEN.
Maybe you just have a bad drive, and RSX is unhappy just as RSTS was.
That is possible. Although it was after the GEN finished.
The fact that you managed to boot the baseline system and run a sysgen suggests that things are running pretty well...
Also possible the file I should've BOOted was named after the name I
gave the system.
No, the output file is RSX11M.SYS, which should have booted ok unless you actually configured it for hardware you do not have...
Johnny
