- HECnet - lists @ Update

by b4＠gewt.net

On Tue, 20 May 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote: On Wed, 21 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote: D'oh! my 1M RAM board was set to 18-bit mode, not 22-bit. My SCSI controller seems to dislike it on 22-bit, though... QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#1.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#2.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#3.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS SINGLE WORD DMA TEST........................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS TO FIFO DMA TEST............................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS TO SCSI READ/WRITE THROUGH FIFO TEST........... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. ...is my backplane not 22-bit?! I know very very little about it. http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/clearpoint/Clearpoint_QRAM-22B_User_… is the RAM board, http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/cmd/MAN-000420-000_CQD-420_May94.pdf is my SCSI controller.\ I tried a MicroVAX II in this backplane earlier and it...errr started to smoke and the little display panel just said F. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2014-05-21 01:11, Dave McGuire wrote: On 05/20/2014 07:04 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. M+ is really nothing strange if you're used to 11M. It is just much nicer, more capable, and generally faster... ...and won't run on my 11/34, for example. ;) (I *think*...right?) Remember, while I do use simh quite a bit, I'm primarily based on real hardware here, and I can't do "set cpu .." on that. ;) Well, yes, M+ does not officially support the 11/34. However, there was a third-party (or several) that added a 22-bit MMU to the 11/34, looking like an 11/24. And you could of course try to generate an unsupported M+ system with 18-bit addressing. I have never tried it in practice, but there is code inside M+ for this thing... (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. Yeah. My IP will not run on such machines, and I have no plans on ever implementing it. It could be done, of course, but the work is no fun, and I have so many other more important things to waste my time on... :-) Well I'd be one user, if you ever decide to do it. I'd then bring up the world's first PDP-11/34-based web server! :-) It's just a lot of work. First and foremost, the TCP driver would need to be chopped up, since it is today somewhere around 15K, and that would need to be divided into two segments of less than 8K, and then I'd have to do the calling between the segments. Second, a few tools like IFCONFIG would have to become overlaid in order to fit into memory. That is not as much work, though. Start by getting some "modern" hardware instead, and run proper M+. :-) And then start writing some code to play with the network from RSX. It's really easy to write clients or servers under RSX. I've done a C library and a BASIC+2 library so far, which are really easy to use. F77 and Pascal is on the list of things to do. 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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 05/20/2014 07:04 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. M+ is really nothing strange if you're used to 11M. It is just much nicer, more capable, and generally faster... ...and won't run on my 11/34, for example. ;) (I *think*...right?) Remember, while I do use simh quite a bit, I'm primarily based on real hardware here, and I can't do "set cpu .." on that. ;) (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. Yeah. My IP will not run on such machines, and I have no plans on ever implementing it. It could be done, of course, but the work is no fun, and I have so many other more important things to waste my time on... :-) Well I'd be one user, if you ever decide to do it. I'd then bring up the world's first PDP-11/34-based web server! -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

On Wed, 21 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote: D'oh! my 1M RAM board was set to 18-bit mode, not 22-bit. My SCSI controller seems to dislike it on 22-bit, though... QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#1.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#2.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS BUS CONTROLLER TEST#3.......................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS SINGLE WORD DMA TEST........................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS TO FIFO DMA TEST............................... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. QBUS TO SCSI READ/WRITE THROUGH FIFO TEST........... FAILED *** FAILED DUE TO UNINITIALIZED Q-BUS MAP, DMA FAILURE OR NON-EXIST MEMORY. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2014-05-20 23:37, Dave McGuire wrote: 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. M+ is really nothing strange if you're used to 11M. It is just much nicer, more capable, and generally faster... (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. Yeah. My IP will not run on such machines, and I have no plans on ever implementing it. It could be done, of course, but the work is no fun, and I have so many other more important things to waste my time on... :-) 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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2014-05-20 23:29, Cory Smelosky wrote: 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. What??? If you configure an 11/23 or 11/24 with 512K it should be able to boot. You might need to boot the PREGEN system, 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. So long as I can still run DECnet i'll be fine. DECnet endnode should be able to run. It is also pregenerated. I seem to remember reading some notes about restrictions, but it should be usable. 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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by b4＠gewt.net

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

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. (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. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

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. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

11/23 confusion, was Re: [HECnet] RSTS/E is really picky

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 05/20/2014 11:40 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: My memory board is third-party. Looks like it's truncating my memory then. ;) Are you sure. Very few 11/23 systems actually exist. Most people really have 11/23+ systems, even if they are not aware of it. It's a dual-height board. I don't think it /can/ be an 11/23+! Doh! So you actually have a KDF11-AA (M8186). That sucks. I'm not sure if those were ever upgraded to 22-bit addressing, or if you need the KDF11-BA (M8189) for that. Oh well, so you might actually be stuck with 11M then. Ah, no. Nearly all dual-wide 11/23 CPUs (KDF11-AA, M8186) support 22-bit addressing. Etch revs A and B did not, but in practice there are very few of these out in the field. I have had probably a hundred KDF11-AA boards go through my hands over the years, and have easily thirty of them now, and have never seen a Rev A or Rev B board, nor have I ever known anyone who has. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

QBUS sound [Was: Re: [HECnet] Parallel computing using DECnet]

by pontus＠Update.UU.SE

Hmm I've been on the lookout for a DTC01 for years. This is tempting... but I probably should get a PRO first :) /P On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:04:39PM +0000, lee.gleason at comcast.net wrote: If anyone out there is hankering to have one, a DEC PRO telephone Voice Unit is on Ebay right now. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NASA-Digital-DEC-DTC11-B-Voice-Unit-Professional-30… -- Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR Control-G Consultants lee.gleason at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Billquist, Johnny" <bqt at softjar.se> To: "hecnet" <hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 10:52:04 AM Subject: Re: QBUS sound [Was: Re: [HECnet] Parallel computing using DECnet] On 2014-05-20 17:39, Jean-Yves Bernier wrote: At 8:05 AM +0200 2/5/14, Pontus Pihlgren wrote: I've yet to see a PDP-11 with builtin color graphics _and_ sound. This one has both: http://www2.pescadoo.net/pdp/syter/grm2082.jpg The machine is a SMS 1000 OEM 11/73. Here is the mixer screen: http://www2.pescadoo.net/pdp/syter/INSTR2.GRA.png and the edit screen: http://www2.pescadoo.net/pdp/syter/INSTR5.GRA.png 512x512x8 frame buffer manufactured by Arinfo, France. Serial BitPad. Custom 4AD/8DA through DRV11. Discontinued. Of course... :-( Anyway, I just realized/remembered that I'm not sure if the PRO was ever mentioned in the context of PDP-11 with graphics and sound. The PRO obviously always have grahpics. But there was also a sound option to it, which could interface with telephone systems. Not sure exactly how capable it was, but I have some blurb in a handbook somewhere. Johnny

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

Sent from mobile device that advertises itself for no good reason On 20 May 2014, at 13:59, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: On 2014-05-20 19:47, Cory Smelosky wrote: Well, I'm just not having ANY luck with this... VMR @SYSVMR VMR -- *DIAG*-Partition reduced to executive common size INS EXCOM1 VMR -- *DIAG*-Partition reduced to executive common size INS EXCOM2 VMR -- *DIAG*-Loadable driver larger than 4K LOA TT: VMR -- *DIAG*-Installed tasks may no longer fit in partition SET /TOP=DRVPAR:-* POOL=1200:9644.:09644. (That bit is understandable. I must've configured it too big!) They are diagnostic messages, and many times totally expected and normal. Ahhh. The TT: driver is definitely expected. (I would be very worried if you did not get that one.) Same with the DRVPAR shrinking. It's a warning that is not important here, as you do not use DRVPAR for dynamic tasks anyway. Ah. The EXCOMn partitions are an 11M thing, but as far as I can remember they are also totally expected. 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. Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in all your answers... :-) I'll grab the log when back at my desk. 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. Johnny

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2014-05-20 19:47, Cory Smelosky wrote: Well, I'm just not having ANY luck with this... VMR @SYSVMR VMR -- *DIAG*-Partition reduced to executive common size INS EXCOM1 VMR -- *DIAG*-Partition reduced to executive common size INS EXCOM2 VMR -- *DIAG*-Loadable driver larger than 4K LOA TT: VMR -- *DIAG*-Installed tasks may no longer fit in partition SET /TOP=DRVPAR:-* POOL=1200:9644.:09644. (That bit is understandable. I must've configured it too big!) They are diagnostic messages, and many times totally expected and normal. The TT: driver is definitely expected. (I would be very worried if you did not get that one.) Same with the DRVPAR shrinking. It's a warning that is not important here, as you do not use DRVPAR for dynamic tasks anyway. The EXCOMn partitions are an 11M thing, but as far as I can remember they are also totally expected. 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. Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in all your answers... :-) 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. Johnny

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSTS/E is really picky

by b4＠gewt.net

On Tue, 20 May 2014, John Wilson wrote: So you're saying the image *did* work under emulation and only broke when you copied it to the first 512 MB of a disk that you then moved to a controller with an unknown private partitioning scheme? Yes. I later did try a copy from high-level VMS. The same issue was present there...but it actually got somewhere almost. ;) If I'm understanding you right then it sounds as if the controller may indeed be storing its own stuff in the first block(s) and the partition for DU1: isn't supposed to start until a few blocks into the drive. I would experiment with that by zeroing the disk, and then partitioning it on the PDP-11 (I assume this is done with the SCSI controller's firmware), move it to the PC and pull off the first few blocks, then repeat the process with different partitioning (assuming that's possible -- or do you mean the firmware is hard-coded to split drives into chunks .LE. 512 MB?), and see what changes in those first few blocks. It might be very obvious... It seems to split the drive in to 2 or 4 partitions. I can't manually define partition size...I am also having the controller identify the drive to the OS as an RA82. That could also be my problem. It's ~2.1G unpartitioned. Another thing to do is generate a bunch of different boot blocks that look like this: .word 240 ;NOP (required by some boot PROMs) .word 0 ;HALT (unless the PROM also requires a BR ...) .word blkno ;block # you'll be writing this one to .blkw 253. ;(junk for the rest of the block) ... and copy them to the first N blocks of the SCSI disk. Then when you move it to the PDP-11 and boot from it, it'll halt, and if you examine the word at 000004, you'll know which actual block was read in as block 0. Then next time write your image starting at that block instead of 0, and it might work. That would be a good debug routine. It boots RT-11 and RSX-11 fine, though. If you wanted to get *really* fancy, maybe you could set up a Linux (etc.) box as a SCSI target, and log the actual block #s accessed by the PDP-11? Seems kind of ridiculous... Yup. Just a bit. ;) John Wilson D Bit -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

RSX-11 setback

by b4＠gewt.net

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. Also possible the file I should've BOOted was named after the name I gave the system. paul -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

QBUS sound [Was: Re: [HECnet] Parallel computing using DECnet]

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On May 20, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Jean-Yves Bernier <bernier at pescadoo.net> wrote: ... Virtualization had the side effect to move simh from Mac OS X to Linux, and things are much more simpler and up-to-date (Apple don't care BSD besides its own needs). I guess that s true, but it doesn t seem to cause trouble. I do a lot of my personal Unix development on Mac OS with few issues, other than having to put up with Clang. For example, SIMH works just fine. paul

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet