On Jun 10, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2014 02:32 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
What's the latest version of VWS/the workstation stuff? I've heard
DECwindows is a bit heavy for a VS2000. ;)
DECwindows is fine on a VS2000, FYI. (been there, done that...for YEARS)
-Dave
I ve used both on the same hardware started on a VS2 (the first one with color graphics) running VWS, then switched to DECwindows when VWS was unceremoniously canceled. I m pretty sure that DECwindows was both functionally superior and a whole lot faster.
paul
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 06/10/2014 02:32 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
What's the latest version of VWS/the workstation stuff? I've heard
DECwindows is a bit heavy for a VS2000. ;)
DECwindows is fine on a VS2000, FYI. (been there, done that...for YEARS)
Ahh, Okay!
I need to fix these before I can shove it on the cluster node, though. ;)
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, Free GBLPAGES is 11620, should be at least 30000
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter GBLPAGFIL is 1024, should be at least 6024
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter CHANNELCNT is 127, should be at least 255
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_DPGFLQUOTA is 16400, should be at least 32768
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MASTLM is 4, should be at least 100
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MBIOLM is 4, should be at least 100
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MDIOLM is 4, should be at least 100
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MPRCLM is 0, should be at least 8
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MFILLM is 2, should be at least 100
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MBYTLM is 1024, should be at least 48000
%DECW-W-BADVALUE, SYSGEN parameter PQL_MENQLM is 30, should be at least 200
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 06/10/2014 02:32 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
What's the latest version of VWS/the workstation stuff? I've heard
DECwindows is a bit heavy for a VS2000. ;)
DECwindows is fine on a VS2000, FYI. (been there, done that...for YEARS)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Afternoon all,
What's the latest version of VWS/the workstation stuff? I've heard DECwindows is a bit heavy for a VS2000. ;)
I found JVWS044 (This...might be the Japanese version...) over on slave.hecnet.eu's archive...but I can't manage anything beyond 10K/sec there. Anyone have a newer version on a faster, more local link anywhere?
Thanks!
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
I know Chrissie is/was a member of the HECnet list so hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes, but there might be some here interested by this announcement, even interested in taking over the project. In any case I thought some would like to know.
John H. Reinhardt
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Linux-decnet-user] All finished
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:02:37 +0100
From: Chrissie <christine.caulfield at googlemail.com>
To: linux-decnet-user at lists.sourceforge.net
So this is it, I'm announcing the end of my involvement in all things
Linux/DECnet related.
I've orphaned all the Debian packages and I'm going to leave Sourceforge
and this mailing list. I'm not going to delete the project (if that's
even possible) as I think there's value in leaving the code online in
case people want it.
Thank you do everyone who has contributed to this project in the form of
code, documentation, help on the mailing list, and just general
encourangement. It's been fun.
But life moves on and this project has been almost dead for a while and
I need to stop pretending that it's something I'm doing.
XX
Chrissie
_______________________________________________
Project Home Page: http://linux-decnet.wiki.sourceforge.net/
Linux-decnet-user mailing list
Linux-decnet-user at lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-decnet-user
On 2014-06-07 00:03, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Mark Pizzolato wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-06 01:16, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
OK. So you sound like you really need a throttling option for the
LAN
devices. I'll look over the throttling logic in the bridge and fold
in something similar.
Well, I'm not so sure that code should be a model to pattern anything after.
Everything about my bridge is just a hack. Done just to fix an
immediate problem without any proper design at any corner. :-)
It definitely has more going for it then my first thoughts. Before looking at
your bridge code, I was merely going to create an option to measure the time
between successive packets. Your model allows for some bursting but then
starts throttling.
I'll make it an option and the control variables (TIMEWINDOW, BURSTSIZE,
DELAY) configurable. Default will be no throttle.
The current simh code base has Ethernet transmit throttling support for XQ and XU devices.
The default behavior is unchanged (i.e. no throttling).
Throttling for a particular LAN interface can be enabled with:
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=DISABLE
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=ENABLE
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=TIME=n{;BURST=n{;DELAY=n}}
Where:
TIME=n specifies an inter-packet gap (in ms) which can trigger throttling
BURST=n specifies the number of successive packets which sent with a gap < TIME will trigger throttling
DELAY=n specifies the number of milliseconds to delay when before transmitting the next packet
Defaults for these are TIME=5, BURST=4 and DELAY=10
The defaults were taken from Johnny's Bridge program. Since I don't have working physical systems to test with, I'm looking for feedback on good working choices for these default values.
Cool. I'll test this in a couple of days. This would actually be a big improvement for me.
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 Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Mark Pizzolato wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-06 01:16, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
OK. So you sound like you really need a throttling option for the
LAN
devices. I'll look over the throttling logic in the bridge and fold
in something similar.
Well, I'm not so sure that code should be a model to pattern anything after.
Everything about my bridge is just a hack. Done just to fix an
immediate problem without any proper design at any corner. :-)
It definitely has more going for it then my first thoughts. Before looking at
your bridge code, I was merely going to create an option to measure the time
between successive packets. Your model allows for some bursting but then
starts throttling.
I'll make it an option and the control variables (TIMEWINDOW, BURSTSIZE,
DELAY) configurable. Default will be no throttle.
The current simh code base has Ethernet transmit throttling support for XQ and XU devices.
The default behavior is unchanged (i.e. no throttling).
Throttling for a particular LAN interface can be enabled with:
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=DISABLE
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=ENABLE
sim> SET {XQ|XQB|XU|XUB} THROTTLE=TIME=n{;BURST=n{;DELAY=n}}
Where:
TIME=n specifies an inter-packet gap (in ms) which can trigger throttling
BURST=n specifies the number of successive packets which sent with a gap < TIME will trigger throttling
DELAY=n specifies the number of milliseconds to delay when before transmitting the next packet
Defaults for these are TIME=5, BURST=4 and DELAY=10
The defaults were taken from Johnny's Bridge program. Since I don't have working physical systems to test with, I'm looking for feedback on good working choices for these default values.
- Mark
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-06 01:16, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
OK. So you sound like you really need a throttling option for the LAN
devices. I'll look over the throttling logic in the bridge and fold in something
similar.
Well, I'm not so sure that code should be a model to pattern anything after.
Everything about my bridge is just a hack. Done just to fix an immediate
problem without any proper design at any corner. :-)
It definitely has more going for it then my first thoughts. Before looking at your bridge code, I was merely going to create an option to measure the time between successive packets. Your model allows for some bursting but then starts throttling.
I'll make it an option and the control variables (TIMEWINDOW, BURSTSIZE, DELAY) configurable. Default will be no throttle.
- Mark
On 2014-06-06 01:16, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-05 20:46, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-05 19:23, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Interesting. I still have real network issues with the latest simh
talking to a real PDP-11 sitting on the same physical network. So
you seem to have hit sime other kind of limitation or something...
I wouldn't think that traffic between PDP11 systems would put so much
data in flight that all of the above issues would come into play.
Hmmm...Grind...Grind... I do seem have some vague recollection of an
issue with some DEQNA devices not being able to handle back-to-back
packets coming in from the wire. This issue might have been behind DEC's
wholesale replacement/upgrading of every DEQNA in the field, and it also
may have had something to do with the DEQNA not being officially
supported as a cluster device...
Hey, just do:
sim> SET XQ TYPE=DELQA-T
and your all good. :-) Too bad you can't just upgrade real hardware like
that.
Uh... It's the PDP-11 that have problems receiving packets, not simh.
I knew that. It was a joke. Notice ":-)"....
Well, it was ambiguous. :-)
Also, my PDP-11 already have a DELQA-T. :-) Finally, of course a simulated
PDP-11 running on a fast machine will be able to output data at a high rate.
Why would it not?
It would. I never argued that it wouldn't.
I read it as you was thinking that it would not. Maybe I'm being too literal tonight.
Two real PDP-11 systems do not get any problems.
Sending data from a real PDP-11 to the one in simh (or whatever) does not
have any problems either.
It is only when you send lots of data from a simulated machine (be that a
PDP-11 or a VAX) to a real PDP-11 that you get these issues. I would suspect
you should be able to see similar issues if the receiving end was physical VAX
as well.
I just tried to fire up the old VAX Station 4000 I've got on the shelf. This system hasn't been booted in more than 5 years (maybe 10). When it last booted, it didn't have any working disks, so I was planning to boot it into a cluster from my simh host. Without a disk, I'll have to create a RAM disk to test file copies from simh side to real side... I haven't had a monitor for the system for at about 15 years, but the last booting activities worked fine with a cable to one of the serial ports. But today it doesn't work. :-(
You would have to boot VMS, since you don't have DECnet under much else. (I know you could have Ultrix with DECnet, but I somehow don't think that's the right way... :-) )
The problem is also partly DECnet. DECnet do not seem to keep packets that
arrive out of order. So if a packet in a sequence is lost, DECnet is going to
retransmit all packets from that point forward. Meaning that when the
session timer times out, the retransmission happens, and then you will yet
again drop a packet in the whole sequence of packets that are sent. Each
time the session timer times out, DECnet also do a backoff on the timeout
time of that timer, until the session timer is about 2 minutes. So after a while
you end up with DECnet sending a burst of packets, some of which are lost. It
then takes about 2 minutes before a retransmission happens, at which point
you get another 2 minute timeout. Thus, performance sucks.
TCP/IP is better (well, my TCP/IP anyway), in that when I loose a packet, I still
keep whatever later packets I get, so after a while I get to a stable mode
where TCP only sends one packet at a time, since the window is full. Only
actually lost packets needs to be retransmitted, so I actually do get to this
stable point.
OK. So you sound like you really need a throttling option for the LAN devices. I'll look over the throttling logic in the bridge and fold in something similar.
Well, I'm not so sure that code should be a model to pattern anything after. Everything about my bridge is just a hack. Done just to fix an immediate problem without any proper design at any corner. :-)
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 Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-05 20:46, Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm wrote:
On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-05 19:23, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Interesting. I still have real network issues with the latest simh
talking to a real PDP-11 sitting on the same physical network. So
you seem to have hit sime other kind of limitation or something...
I wouldn't think that traffic between PDP11 systems would put so much
data in flight that all of the above issues would come into play.
Hmmm...Grind...Grind... I do seem have some vague recollection of an
issue with some DEQNA devices not being able to handle back-to-back
packets coming in from the wire. This issue might have been behind DEC's
wholesale replacement/upgrading of every DEQNA in the field, and it also
may have had something to do with the DEQNA not being officially
supported as a cluster device...
Hey, just do:
sim> SET XQ TYPE=DELQA-T
and your all good. :-) Too bad you can't just upgrade real hardware like
that.
Uh... It's the PDP-11 that have problems receiving packets, not simh.
I knew that. It was a joke. Notice ":-)"....
Also, my PDP-11 already have a DELQA-T. :-) Finally, of course a simulated
PDP-11 running on a fast machine will be able to output data at a high rate.
Why would it not?
It would. I never argued that it wouldn't.
Two real PDP-11 systems do not get any problems.
Sending data from a real PDP-11 to the one in simh (or whatever) does not
have any problems either.
It is only when you send lots of data from a simulated machine (be that a
PDP-11 or a VAX) to a real PDP-11 that you get these issues. I would suspect
you should be able to see similar issues if the receiving end was physical VAX
as well.
I just tried to fire up the old VAX Station 4000 I've got on the shelf. This system hasn't been booted in more than 5 years (maybe 10). When it last booted, it didn't have any working disks, so I was planning to boot it into a cluster from my simh host. Without a disk, I'll have to create a RAM disk to test file copies from simh side to real side... I haven't had a monitor for the system for at about 15 years, but the last booting activities worked fine with a cable to one of the serial ports. But today it doesn't work. :-(
The problem is also partly DECnet. DECnet do not seem to keep packets that
arrive out of order. So if a packet in a sequence is lost, DECnet is going to
retransmit all packets from that point forward. Meaning that when the
session timer times out, the retransmission happens, and then you will yet
again drop a packet in the whole sequence of packets that are sent. Each
time the session timer times out, DECnet also do a backoff on the timeout
time of that timer, until the session timer is about 2 minutes. So after a while
you end up with DECnet sending a burst of packets, some of which are lost. It
then takes about 2 minutes before a retransmission happens, at which point
you get another 2 minute timeout. Thus, performance sucks.
TCP/IP is better (well, my TCP/IP anyway), in that when I loose a packet, I still
keep whatever later packets I get, so after a while I get to a stable mode
where TCP only sends one packet at a time, since the window is full. Only
actually lost packets needs to be retransmitted, so I actually do get to this
stable point.
OK. So you sound like you really need a throttling option for the LAN devices. I'll look over the throttling logic in the bridge and fold in something similar.
- Mark
