Thanks guys... also checking out alt.sys.pdp10 - I'd gotten tapes at work a while back, then started messing with the Panda distribution. I may just try to bring it up from tape and try my luck once again.
Thanks again!
Joe
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
<Pray tell - who owns area 59? Sampsa?
Peter Lothberg
Bob Armstrong
On 2011-07-13 01:14, Joe Ferraro wrote:
Pray tell - who owns area 59? Sampsa?
Nope. The information can be found at MIM::US:[DECNET], but I can tell you it is someone called Peter L thberg. Don't know if you know about him, though. But he knows pretty much all there is to know about PDP-10s.
On 2011-07-13 01:14, Joe Ferraro wrote:
Pray tell - who owns area 59? Sampsa?
Nope. The information can be found at MIM::US:[DECNET], but I can tell you it is someone called Peter L thberg. Don't know if you know about him, though. But he knows pretty much all there is to know about PDP-10s.
Johnny
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
On 2011-07-12 23:14, Joe Ferraro wrote:
While we are on the topic, does anyone have any experience with
TOPS-20
/ DECNET? I've haven't had time to mess with it of late, but I was
unsuccessful in a previous evening's attempt or two.
Well, doh...! :-)
.ncp tell sol sho exec cha
Node characteristics as of 12-JUL-11 23:38:44
Executor node = 59.10 (SOL)
Identification = Systems Concepts SF CA USA - SC30M - DN-20 4.0,
Management v
ersion = 4.0.0
Loop count = 1, Loop length = 127
Loop with = Mixed, Incoming timer = 30
Outgoing timer = 60, NSP version = 4.0.0
Maximum links = 65535, Delay factor = 48
Delay weight = 10
Inactivity timer = 120, Retransmit factor = 10
Routing version = 2.0.0, Type = Routing IV
Routing timer = 600
Broadcast routing timer = 40, Maximum address = 1023
Maximum circuits = 20
Maximum cost = 100
Maximum hops = 16, Maximum visits = 20
Maximum broadcast endnodes = 64
Maximum broadcast routers = 32
Maximum buffers = 80, Buffer size = 576
Segment buffer size = 576
--
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
Pray tell - who owns area 59? Sampsa?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2011-07-12 23:14, Joe Ferraro wrote:
While we are on the topic, does anyone have any experience with TOPS-20
/ DECNET? I've haven't had time to mess with it of late, but I was
unsuccessful in a previous evening's attempt or two.
Well, doh...! :-)
.ncp tell sol sho exec cha
Node characteristics as of 12-JUL-11 23:38:44
Executor node = 59.10 (SOL)
Identification = Systems Concepts SF CA USA - SC30M - DN-20 4.0, Management v
ersion = 4.0.0
Loop count = 1, Loop length = 127
Loop with = Mixed, Incoming timer = 30
Outgoing timer = 60, NSP version = 4.0.0
Maximum links = 65535, Delay factor = 48
Delay weight = 10
Inactivity timer = 120, Retransmit factor = 10
Routing version = 2.0.0, Type = Routing IV
Routing timer = 600
Broadcast routing timer = 40, Maximum address = 1023
Maximum circuits = 20
Maximum cost = 100
Maximum hops = 16, Maximum visits = 20
Maximum broadcast endnodes = 64
Maximum broadcast routers = 32
Maximum buffers = 80, Buffer size = 576
Segment buffer size = 576
Well, I had written that I considered 100VG a joke but decided not to send that :-). But - agree with you on that.
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Paul Koning
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
Verzonden: 12 juli 2011 23:49
You're right, FDDI predated 100BaseT by a little. Not by a whole lot.
100BaseVG was always a joke.
paul
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:44 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
Paul. In 1991 there was no fast ethernet as we know it today. Ethernet over glassfiber was proprietary and by and large restricted to 10 Mb/s.
The problems with the redesign had tot do with emulating FDDI's built in redundancy with ethernet.
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Paul Koning
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
Verzonden: 12 juli 2011 23:38
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:29 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl> <hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
It took HP until 2006 to replace the FDDI lan with ethernet technolgy. The fault tolerance of FDDI and the build quality of DEC's gigaswitch products.
The bandwidth of FDDI is a lot better than fast ethernet.
Not true, not unless the implementation is crummy. Any halfway decent fast Ethernet host will run at wire speed, and the difference between 1500 and 4460 MTU isn't enough to amount to very much.
paul
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
real network switches, and faster computer buses certainly helped there too.... Then there was that 'PC in the server room' thing that happened.... It was insane they'd sell 100Mbit cards on buses that could barely go above 10 or 33mbit.
2011/7/12 Kari Uusim ki <uusimaki at exdecfinland.org>
Yes, absolutely! The bandwith was 98% of the nominal value. Ethernet starts diminshing after 60%.
I did extensive testing of FDDI back in early -90's and put as much load on it as I could with about a dozen Alphas of the time and found out that it easily outperformed Ethernet.
FDDI gear were more expensive than Ethernet, but were more useful.
FDDI was really outperformed by GbE as the multiplexed 100Mbit/s wasn't available on so many platforms.
Kari
On 13.7.2011 0:29, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
It took HP until 2006 to replace the FDDI lan with ethernet technolgy.
The fault tolerance of FDDI and the build quality of DEC's gigaswitch
products.
The bandwidth of FDDI is a lot better than fast ethernet.
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Joe Ferraro <jferraro at gmail.com>
*Sender: * owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Date: *Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:12:02 -0400
*To: *<hecnet at update.uu.se>
*ReplyTo: * hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Subject: *Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
Off topic... I received a page, a few weeks prior, on a machine that was
not pinging. Turns out, it was one of a few old NOVA class boxes we
still have at my work, using FDDI for connectivity. Fortunately, a
disconnect / reconnect brought the ring back online; I was scared (and a
bit excited in a strange way) for a few moments that I was going to have
to do some extensive troubleshooting... FDDI still lives.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:27 PM, H Vlems <hvlems at zonnet.nl
<mailto:hvlems at zonnet.nl>> wrote:
__
Remember what I wrote: this happened nearly two decades ago.____
IP is the protocol that survived and most people aren t even aware
what happened on local area networks before, say,1998.____
I worked for Fuji, photosensitive films, paper and offset printing
products.____
Most of the IT equipment was made by DEC: PDP-11 s (/44, /84, /93,
/24, /73 and /23), VAXes, an IBM mainframe (4081) and PC s.____
And lots of other gear, most of it in the research lab. A Motorola
box that ran Motorola Unix, and an RS/6000 under AIX 2.4 (?).____
The lingua franca was DECnet and LAT. No IP, though some PC s used
Novell and SNA over tokenring to make terminal emulation to the
mainframe possible.____
No IP. Sounds weird in today s world but DECnet eventually
connected everything. We got a **very** early Cisco router that did
level 1____
DECnet routing between the corporate ethernet and the finance dept
token ring. Another (DEC) box that routed DECnet over Datanet/1
(that s X25 in Europe IIRC). The mainframe used an SNA/DECnet
gateway (the big channel attached box).____
The RS/6000 and the Motorola systems also ran DECnet, endnode only.____
To make this a little interesting we ran the first FDDI network in
the Netherlands.____
Trouble shooting wasn t always easy, especially if the SNA/DECnet
gateway was involved!____
Hans____
__ __
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Van:*owner-__hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>__
[mailto:owner- <mailto:owner->__hecnet at Update.UU.SE
<mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>__] *Namens *Jason Stevens
*Verzonden:* dinsdag, juli 2011 21:10
*Aan:* hecnet at update.uu.se <mailto:hecnet at update.uu.se>
*Onderwerp:* Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....____
__ __
AIX and decnet? now that'd be ... non conformist & fun! ____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Versie: 10.0.1388 / Virusdatabase: 1516/3760 - datum van uitgifte:
07/12/11____
Ok, true if you're talking half duplex with multiple active nodes.
paul
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Kari Uusim ki wrote:
Yes, absolutely! The bandwith was 98% of the nominal value. Ethernet starts diminshing after 60%.
I did extensive testing of FDDI back in early -90's and put as much load on it as I could with about a dozen Alphas of the time and found out that it easily outperformed Ethernet.
FDDI gear were more expensive than Ethernet, but were more useful.
FDDI was really outperformed by GbE as the multiplexed 100Mbit/s wasn't available on so many platforms.
Kari
On 13.7.2011 0:29, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
It took HP until 2006 to replace the FDDI lan with ethernet technolgy.
The fault tolerance of FDDI and the build quality of DEC's gigaswitch
products.
The bandwidth of FDDI is a lot better than fast ethernet.
Hans
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Joe Ferraro <jferraro at gmail.com>
*Sender: * owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Date: *Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:12:02 -0400
*To: *<hecnet at update.uu.se>
*ReplyTo: * hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Subject: *Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
Off topic... I received a page, a few weeks prior, on a machine that was
not pinging. Turns out, it was one of a few old NOVA class boxes we
still have at my work, using FDDI for connectivity. Fortunately, a
disconnect / reconnect brought the ring back online; I was scared (and a
bit excited in a strange way) for a few moments that I was going to have
to do some extensive troubleshooting... FDDI still lives.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:27 PM, H Vlems <hvlems at zonnet.nl
<mailto:hvlems at zonnet.nl>> wrote:
__
Remember what I wrote: this happened nearly two decades ago.____
IP is the protocol that survived and most people aren t even aware
what happened on local area networks before, say,1998.____
I worked for Fuji, photosensitive films, paper and offset printing
products.____
Most of the IT equipment was made by DEC: PDP-11 s (/44, /84, /93,
/24, /73 and /23), VAXes, an IBM mainframe (4081) and PC s.____
And lots of other gear, most of it in the research lab. A Motorola
box that ran Motorola Unix, and an RS/6000 under AIX 2.4 (?).____
The lingua franca was DECnet and LAT. No IP, though some PC s used
Novell and SNA over tokenring to make terminal emulation to the
mainframe possible.____
No IP. Sounds weird in today s world but DECnet eventually
connected everything. We got a **very** early Cisco router that did
level 1____
DECnet routing between the corporate ethernet and the finance dept
token ring. Another (DEC) box that routed DECnet over Datanet/1
(that s X25 in Europe IIRC). The mainframe used an SNA/DECnet
gateway (the big channel attached box).____
The RS/6000 and the Motorola systems also ran DECnet, endnode only.____
To make this a little interesting we ran the first FDDI network in
the Netherlands.____
Trouble shooting wasn t always easy, especially if the SNA/DECnet
gateway was involved!____
Hans____
__ __
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Van:*owner-__hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>__
[mailto:owner- <mailto:owner->__hecnet at Update.UU.SE
<mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>__] *Namens *Jason Stevens
*Verzonden:* dinsdag, juli 2011 21:10
*Aan:* hecnet at update.uu.se <mailto:hecnet at update.uu.se>
*Onderwerp:* Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....____
__ __
AIX and decnet? now that'd be ... non conformist & fun! ____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Versie: 10.0.1388 / Virusdatabase: 1516/3760 - datum van uitgifte:
07/12/11____
On 2011-07-12 23:11, Mark Benson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2011, at 21:48, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
DECnet/AIX was a 3rd party effort IIRC
I haven't searched the internet yet but who knows what is available.
Perhaps the opensource decnet kit may be portable.
I know there's a DECNet kit for Linux out there somewhere. Not sure about anything else. Nothing crops up on a quick Google search that isn't dated early 90s.
There are Linux nodes on HECnet.
As for other implementations I know of...
SunOS had one. Probably never ported to Solaris, though.
Symbolics had one for GENERA (Lisp machines).
Cisco can probably still sell you a DECnet capable router, if you talk to them.
MS-DOS as well as Windows can talk DECnet (I used to have a WinXP machine on HECnet - Josse (1.17), but that machine is in Sweden, and I'm in Switzerland now).
I'm sure there are other implementations as well.
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
You're right, FDDI predated 100BaseT by a little. Not by a whole lot.
100BaseVG was always a joke.
paul
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:44 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
Paul. In 1991 there was no fast ethernet as we know it today. Ethernet over glassfiber was proprietary and by and large restricted to 10 Mb/s.
The problems with the redesign had tot do with emulating FDDI's built in redundancy with ethernet.
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Paul Koning
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
Verzonden: 12 juli 2011 23:38
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:29 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl> <hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
It took HP until 2006 to replace the FDDI lan with ethernet technolgy. The fault tolerance of FDDI and the build quality of DEC's gigaswitch products.
The bandwidth of FDDI is a lot better than fast ethernet.
Not true, not unless the implementation is crummy. Any halfway decent fast Ethernet host will run at wire speed, and the difference between 1500 and 4460 MTU isn't enough to amount to very much.
paul
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
In 2005 speed wasn't the problem but redundancy was difficult to design in ethernet. I'm not a tokenring fan but the relianility of FDD- was impressive.
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
From: Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:39:45 -0400
To: <hecnet at update.uu.se>
ReplyTo: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
I thought all the new ethernet stuff does jumbo frames for those that like that kind of thing anyways....
Not true, not unless the implementation is crummy. Any halfway decent fast Ethernet host will run at wire speed, and the difference between 1500 and 4460 MTU isn't enough to amount to very much.
paul
