HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15556 discussions

by Thomas DeBellis

I thought I would update everyone with where things stand with the Tops-20 finger server. Johnny and I agreed that, by default, the response to a DECnet finger query is a sequences of records, each no longer than 132 bytes (more typically 90), terminated by a line-feed. If the remote finger client or operating system can handle larger buffers, then it can connect with optional data=STREAM. Tops-20 will then dump everything in one giant record. Only the Tops-20 finger client can handle this, although I suspect maybe a VAX client might also be able to do it. I had been making steady progress until I started stress testing it, meaning having a session active on MIM::, TOMMYT::, and VENTI2:: (local), each having a finger command in ready to go and then pushing carriage return on all three as simultaneously as possible. This started generating errors on MIM:: that the "object wasn't available". What was going on was that the structure of the Tops-20 finger server really wasn't architected to have real time response for that much curiosity. It only opens a single SRV:117 (finger) object at a time, waits for a connection, reads the data, hands it off to an idle finger client fork via a pipe, and then gets a new SRV:117 object. In other words, it isn't until the finger client is started with the connection redirected to DECnet that the server is ready to accept another connection. That has what I would consider to be noticeable latency, particularly on failure. An error doesn't really matter for SMTP as it is a background task and just tries again, later. An interactive finger on the other hand, has a user sitting there waiting for a response, so it seemed to me that this wasn't really going to cut it. I took the model of the Tops-20 FAL server, which has a single control fork, looking for illness in sub-forks, all of which open their own FAL server object. The new finger controller now starts separate FNGSRV sub-server forks, creating a FINGER sub-fork for each, gets all the communications lined up, and starts all the FNGSRV sub-forks to listen for connections. This has the advantage of not clobbering the system on FNGSRV startup because resources are gotten or creating sequentially, so there isn't much for a FNGSRV sub-fork to do except wait for a connection and manage its own single FINGER sub-fork. Startup resource allocation looks like this: [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:1;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:1.1 for reading] [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:2;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:2.2 for reading] [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:3;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:3.3 for reading] [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] The resulting JFN's being: JFN File Mode Bytes(Size) 2 FNGSRV.EXE.330 Read, Execute 3 FINGER.EXE.116 Read, Execute 15 PIP:1;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) 16 PIP:1.1 Read 0.(8) 17 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) 20 PIP:2;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) 21 PIP:2.2 Read 0.(8) 22 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) 23 PIP:3;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) 24 PIP:3.3 Read 0.(8) 25 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) The resulting fork structure is: => FNGSRV (2): HALT at STARTS+13, 0.02719 Fork 12: HALT at 0, 0.00018 Fork 13: HALT at 0, 0.00016 Fork 10: HALT at 0, 0.00012 Fork 11: HALT at 0, 0.00012 Fork 6: HALT at 0, 0.00008 Fork 7: HALT at 0, 0.00007 So fork 2 is the finger server controller, forks 12, 10, and 6 are finger server sub-forks, and forks 13, 11, and 7 are the respective Tops-20 finger clients. Times are in tens of microseconds, the maximum resolution that Tops-20 supports. What can be seen is that fork creation is happening in sub-millisecond time. This was not the case in the 1980's with KL10's (I /think/), and modifications were necessary to Tops-20 and the EXEC to capture the increased resolution. I guess I'll have another version ready in about two weeks.

6 months, 1 week

Re: Tops-20 Finger Server Update

by Johnny Billquist

MIM can be used as an intermediate node, yes. If you send your mails to MIM::<whatever>::USER the mail will be queued up if the <whatever>:: node isn't responding right now. Johnny On 2024-10-04 09:16, jdmail(a)zeelandnet.nl wrote: > Then we need a node as a mailserver? Can that be done? > > Johan > > > Johnny Billquist schreef op 2024-10-04 02:29: > >> And just if anyone wonders - yes, that also means you cannot send mail >> to users on systems that are not currently online. >> A thing that I always found a bit annoying/irritating. >> >> Another reason why I wrote the mail handling for BQTCP to also do the >> writing and sending as two separate steps, with a queuing in between. >> >> Here is how it looks from VMS: >> >> MAIL> sen >> To: josse::bqt >> %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node JOSSE >> -SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable >> >> MAIL> sen >> To: anke::bqt >> %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node ANKE >> -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHOBJ, network object is unknown at remote node >> >> MAIL> >> >> >> It instantly tries to connect, and if that don't work, it immediately >> fails. >> >> Johnny >> >> On 2024-10-04 01:38, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> Sounds like a good improvement. >>> >>> However, I saw something about mail here, that you should be aware of... >>> My MAIL11 implementation is doing the queuing of mails, because that >>> is normal with SMTP, and I just carried over the same behavior to all >>> parts of the system. >>> >>> However, the "standard" MAIL11 application for RSX as well as RSTS/E >>> , along with the DECUS MAIL for RSX (and I suspect also VMS) do not >>> behave that way. If the connecting fails, the sending of mail >>> immediately fail, and it is not queued for retrying. So it would >>> appears that the mail for TOPS-20 you look at is also potentially >>> flawed, which could cause issues. >>> >>> Of course, in that case, you'd normally have a human sitting in front >>> of the terminal, who would then try again... >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> On 2024-10-04 00:05, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>>> I thought I would update everyone with where things stand with the >>>> Tops-20 finger server. >>>> >>>> Johnny and I agreed that, by default, the response to a DECnet >>>> finger query is a sequences of records, each no longer than 132 >>>> bytes (more typically 90), terminated by a line-feed. Ifthe >>>> remote finger client or operating system can handle larger buffers, >>>> then it can connect with optional data=STREAM. Tops-20 will then >>>> dump everything in one giant record. Only the Tops-20 finger client >>>> can handle this, although I suspect maybe a VAX client might also be >>>> able to do it. >>>> >>>> I had been making steady progress until I started stress testing it, >>>> meaning having a session active on MIM::, TOMMYT::, and VENTI2:: >>>> (local), each having a finger command in ready to go and then >>>> pushing carriage return on all three as simultaneously as possible. >>>> >>>> This started generating errors on MIM:: that the "object wasn't >>>> available". What was going on was that the structure of the Tops-20 >>>> finger server really wasn't architected to have real time response >>>> for that much curiosity. It only opens a single SRV:117 (finger) >>>> object at a time, waits for a connection, reads the data, hands it >>>> off to an idle finger client fork via a pipe, and then gets a new >>>> SRV:117 object. >>>> >>>> In other words, it isn't until the finger client is started with the >>>> connection redirected to DECnet that the server is ready to accept >>>> another connection. That has what I would consider to be noticeable >>>> latency, particularly on failure. An error doesn'treally matter >>>> for SMTP as it is a background task and just tries again, later. An >>>> interactive finger on the other hand, has a user sitting there >>>> waiting for a response, so it seemed to me that this wasn't really >>>> going to cutit. >>>> >>>> I took the model of the Tops-20 FAL server, which has a single >>>> control fork, looking for illness in sub-forks, all of which open >>>> their own FAL server object. The new finger controller now starts >>>> separate FNGSRV sub-server forks, creating a FINGER sub-fork for >>>> each, gets all the communications lined up, and starts all the >>>> FNGSRV sub-forks to listen for connections. >>>> >>>> This has the advantage of not clobbering the system on FNGSRV >>>> startup because resources are gotten or creating sequentially, so >>>> there isn't much for a FNGSRV sub-fork to do except wait for a >>>> connection and manage its own single FINGER sub-fork. >>>> >>>> Startup resource allocation looks like this: >>>> >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:1;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:1.1 for reading] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:2;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:2.2 for reading] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:3;RECORD-LENGTH:200 for writing] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening PIP:3.3 for reading] >>>> [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] >>>> >>>> The resulting JFN's being: >>>> >>>> JFN File Mode Bytes(Size) >>>> >>>> 2 FNGSRV.EXE.330 Read, Execute >>>> 3 FINGER.EXE.116 Read, Execute >>>> 15 PIP:1;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) >>>> 16 PIP:1.1 Read 0.(8) >>>> 17 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) >>>> 20 PIP:2;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) >>>> 21 PIP:2.2 Read 0.(8) >>>> 22 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) >>>> 23 PIP:3;RECORD-LENGTH:200 Append 0.(8) >>>> 24 PIP:3.3 Read 0.(8) >>>> 25 SRV:117 Read, Append 0.(8) >>>> >>>> The resulting fork structure is: >>>> >>>> => FNGSRV (2): HALT at STARTS+13, 0.02719 >>>> Fork 12:HALT at 0, 0.00018 >>>> Fork 13: HALT at 0, 0.00016 >>>> Fork 10:HALT at 0, 0.00012 >>>> Fork 11: HALT at 0, 0.00012 >>>> Fork 6: HALT at 0, 0.00008 >>>> Fork 7: HALT at 0, 0.00007 >>>> >>>> So fork 2 is the finger server controller, forks 12, 10, and 6 are >>>> finger server sub-forks, and forks 13, 11, and 7 are the respective >>>> Tops-20 finger clients. Times are in tens of microseconds, the >>>> maximum resolution that Tops-20 supports. What can be seen is that >>>> fork creation is happening in sub-millisecond time. This was notthe >>>> case in the 1980's with KL10's (I /think/), and modifications were >>>> necessary to Tops-20 and the EXEC to capture the increased resolution. >>>> >>>> I guess I'll have another version ready in about two weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> HECnet mailing list -- hecnet(a)lists.dfupdate.se >>>> <mailto:hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to hecnet-leave(a)lists.dfupdate.se >>>> <mailto:hecnet-leave@lists.dfupdate.se> -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt(a)softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

6 months, 1 week

DECnet Object Numbers (Again!)

by Thomas DeBellis

Some time ago, I asked about a list of DECnet generic objects and what they meant. I remember seeing a response and now I can't find it or what I thought I saved as a file. Could somebody send me that again? For now, all I have is what SYSDPY shows. This is an annotated list (note that numbers are octal unless otherwise specified: _Object#_ _Name_ _Comment_ 0 TASK 1 FAL1 2 URDS Unit Record Device Service (DN200) 3 ATS 4 CTS 5 TCL1 6 OSI 7 NRM 10 3270 3270 Terminal 11 2780 2780 Remote Job Entry protocol 12 3790 13 TPS 14 DIBOL 15 T20TRM Tops-20/Tops-10/Ultrix Network Remote Terminal (NRT) 16 T20RSP 17 TCL 20 TLK 21 FAL File Access Listener 22 RTL 23 NCU NICE? 24 NETCPY 25 ONCTH 26 MAIL How different from MAIL11? 27 NVT 30 TCON 31 LOOP Loopback Testing 32 EVENT DECnet Event Reporting 33 MAIL11 VAX mail? 34 FTS File Transfer Service 35 PHONE Phone 36 DDMF 37 X25GAT X.25 gateway 40 UETP User Environment Test Package 41 VXMAIL 42 X29SRV 43 RDS 44 X25HST X.25 Host 45 SNAGAT SNA Gateway 46 SNARJE SNA Remote Job Entry 47 SNAGIS 50 MTSS 51 ELF 52 CTERM Control Terminal 53 DNSTA 54 DNSUL 55 DHCF ^D47 POSI Remote OPR ^D63 DTR ^D65 TOPOL ^D66 DQS Digital Queue Service (LAT?) ^D117 FINGER Personal Name service ^D123 PMR ^D201 MS

6 months, 3 weeks

Preliminary Tops-20 Finger Server

by Thomas DeBellis

I needed to take a break from finishing up the Tops-20 DECnet/SMTP code, so I finally looked into doing a Tops-20 finger server.Over the weekend, I cobbled something together.For example, on TOMMYT:: FINGER>oinky@venti2 /no-plan OINKYGuinea PigOINKY not logged in Last logout Sun 1-Sep-2024 1:40AM from TTY6 (NRT) No new mail, last read on Tue 12-Apr-2022 10:00PM The finger server is multi-forking and works by creating a group of forks, putting the finger program in each fork and changing the primary input and output to whatever connection is being served.It is general enough so that you could probably have it run any program with little tinkering. Right now, it is in debugging mode and typing a lot of diagnostic information about the link.So, for the above attempt from the client, the finger server console output was: FNGSRV: Connection from TOMMYT, User: SLOGIN, Data: Tops-20_Finger Object Type: Generic (165), Segment Size: 1459 Local Flow Control: Segment, Remote Flow Control: Segment Link Quota: Input Percentage: 50, Buffers: 16, Input Goal: 0 As can be seen, the Tops-20 finger client has been modified to send the name of the local user and optional data identifying the finger client.Probably I’ll change that to the finger version.The RFC for TCP/IP finger is (naturally) silent on what you can send over DECnet, so this doesn’t break anything.So, I can finger myself on MIM:: just fine, viz: FINGER>debellis@mim [Default directory: US00:[DEBELLIS]CLI: DCLSID: TDB Last seen Sep 16 2024 23:04:37 on RT0: from VENTI2:: Logged on 16 times. No plan. Unfortunately, it /doesn’t /work when I sign on to MIM:: and try the local finger client there, viz: $ finger -d VENTI2::OINKY [VENTI2::] $ So, no obvious failure, but no output, either. On VENTI2::, what I’m seeing appears to be a successful connection and that the finger program running in the sub-fork is opening OINKY’s finger plan and sending it back over the link, viz: [Fork FNGSRV opening SRV:117 for reading, writing] FNGSRV: Connection from MIM, Task: DEBELLIS Object Type: Generic (165), Segment Size: 558 Local Flow Control: Segment, Remote Flow Control: Message Link Quota: Input Percentage: 50, Buffers: 16, Input Goal: 0 [Fork 2 opening TOMMYT:FINGER.BIN.5 for reading thawed] [Fork 2 opening TOMMYT:<OINKY>FINGER.PLAN.4 for reading] Currently, the finger server is highly instrumented, so if it detected that something was amiss (like the finger sub-fork was flat out croaking), it would complain about it. Or it should… Finger itself is not so highly instrumented as I wanted to make the changes there as small as possible. If you have a finger client that can do DECnet connections on another platform (I’m thinking VMS or maybe RSTS) and can try it, let me know how you make out. Be aware that I did just hack this together in two and a half days, so I make no claims to any sort of stability. I'm just trying to trouble shoot at this point. —T

6 months, 4 weeks

Area 27's new ISP

by Mark Berryman

To the neighbors of area 27: I have a new ISP which will hopefully prove better than Comcast did. My new addresses are: IPv4: 165.188.116.102 IPv6: 2601:b058:1ff:0:d48b:ea7e:93ea:b795 As always, these addresses are in DNS as decnet.theberrymans.com <http://decnet.theberrymans.com/>. I’m still making the final necessary changes on my router but everything should be up and running by the end of the day (GMT -0600). Mark Berryman

7 months

Re: Finger survey

by Terri Kennedy

I'm a bit late to the party, but I figured I'd chime in here anyway 8-} I was the maintainer of VMS Finger from V50.1.00 (when I took it over from Rand Hall) until V50.1.35 which was the last release in July 2000. Which Finger you get by default (and what it supports) on VMS depends on which TCP/IP package you have. There's no native DECnet-only Finger. I've started working on VMS Finger again, including back-porting the V50.1.35 back to VAX/VMS - VAX support was essentially frozen at V50.1.29. Idle time on VMS is a bucket full of eels - VMS kept track of idle time on physical terminals. I'm not sure if it still does. It never did it for terminal-like connections. Brian Schenkenberger wrote a loadable execu- table image, loaded at boot time, that provides idle monitoring for TT devices, as well as hooks to add monitoring of other terminal devices. A separate utility hooks into it during normal systartup_vms.com proces- sing to add monitoring to RT devices (since that device didn't exist at boot time). Although it is copyrighted by him, he allows it to be dis- tributed with VMS Finger (and it works on both VAX and Alpha). I never had an Itanium system of my own (and never desire to), so if you have one and want to run Finger on it, drop me an email and I'll send you a test kit once I have VMS Finger closer to release state. Here's an example of VMS Finger (running on a real VAX to a virtual- ized Alpha): VX4200::$ finger @server/idle/version [SERVER.DECnet] OpenVMS Finger: Version V51.1.36 of 23-Aug-2024 Unauthorized Access Strictly Prohibited SERVER DS10 616 MHz, OpenVMS V8.4-2L1, Thu, 12-Sep-2024 21:28, 4 Users, 0 Batch Uptime 19 18:55, since Sat, 24-Aug-2024 02:33, Load: 0.06 0.04 0.07 PID Username Program Term Login CPU Idle Location TT Type 0000AD16 TERRY $ NTY13: 02:55 0:00 1:19 bedroom.glaver.o VT3xx 0000AA2B TERRY Ltpad NTY14: 02:56 0:00 18:30 bedroom.glaver.o VT3xx 00008634 TERRY Ua NTY12: 16:47 0:38 1:19 portable3-wl.gla VT3xx 0000C496 TERRY $ NTY15: 14:00 0:00 2 office.glaver.or VT3xx 0000C497 TERRY Ltpad NTY16: 14:01 0:00 7:26 office.glaver.or VT3xx Some info on that display - by default, if the node being fingered looks like it could be a DECnet Phase IV node, it tries DECnet first. If you specify something that either isn't a known DECnet node or can't possibly be a DECnet node, it uses TCP/IP: VX4200::$ finger @server.glaver.org/idle/version [SERVER.GLAVER.ORG] OpenVMS Finger: Version V51.1.36 of 23-Aug-2024 Unauthorized Access Strictly Prohibited SERVER DS10 616 MHz, OpenVMS V8.4-2L1, Thu, 12-Sep-2024 21:31, 4 Users, 0 Batch Uptime 19 18:57, since Sat, 24-Aug-2024 02:33, Load: 0.07 0.07 0.07 PID Username Program Term Login CPU Idle Location TT Type 0000AD16 TERRY $ NTY13: 02:55 0:00 1:21 bedroom.glaver.o VT3xx 0000AA2B TERRY Ltpad NTY14: 02:56 0:00 18:33 bedroom.glaver.o VT3xx 00008634 TERRY Ua NTY12: 16:47 0:38 1:21 portable3-wl.gla VT3xx 0000C496 TERRY $ NTY15: 14:00 0:00 4 office.glaver.or VT3xx 0000C497 TERRY Ltpad NTY16: 14:01 0:00 7:29 office.glaver.or VT3xx VMS Finger will still try to link code for use with Joiner Associates' JNET (BITNET) networking stack if you ask for it, but it is untested for decades. If anyone is still running JNET and connected to something, drop me an email. I'm only testing as far back as VAX/VMS V7.3 right now. Eventually I'll see how far back I can go. Hopefully VMS V5.5-2 and ideally VMS V4.4. So much for VMS Finger... I'm also the creator of RSTS/E Finger. It is DECnet-only, but can be con- figured to use any DECnet node as a gateway, either to other DECnet areas or to TCP/IP hosts. Here's RSTS/E 10.1 being Fingered from VMS: SERVER::$ finger @pidp11/version [PIDP11.DECnet] RSTS/E Finger: Version V1.2-09 of 06-Sep-2024 RSTS/E Your Organization Name Here PiDP-11 PIDP11 PDP-11/70, RSTS V10.1-L, Friday, 12-Sep-1924 21:33, 9 Jobs, 63 Max. Uptime 4 07:33:52, since Monday, 8-Sep-1924 14:00 05-Sep-24 - Your message could be here! Edit FINGER$:FINGER.MSG to change it. Job Username PPN Progrm Term Login CPU ST Location TTType 1 SYSTEM 1,2 ERRCPY Det 00:00 SR - Detached - 2 SYSTEM 1,2 MAILQ Det 00:01 SR - Detached - 3 SYSTEM 1,2 OMS Det 00:03 SL - Detached - 4 SYSTEM 1,2 PBS... Det 00:06 SL - Detached - 5 SYSTEM 1,2 EVTLOG Det 00:00 SL - Detached - 6 SYSTEM 1,2 MESMAN Det 00:00 SL - Detached - 7 TERRY 20,254 DCL KB33: 14:01 00:00 ^C SERVER::[11,376] VT320 8 TERRY 20,254 DCL KB34: 02:57 00:00 ^C SERVER::[11,376] VT320 9 SYSTEM 1,2 FINSRV Det 00:00 RN - Detached - And here is RSTS/E 10.1 Fingering an Internet host: $ finger @mim.stupi.net [MIM.STUPI.NET via routing host SERVER] [SERVER.DECnet] [MIM.STUPI.NET] RSX-11M-PLUS system MIM. Fri Sep 13 03:39:27 2024. Up: 1 day, 4:44. Luser Real name Term Idle Logged in From BILLQUIST Johnny Billquist TT15: 17 12 Sep 14:53 s-5eeaac7c-74736162 RSTS/E Finger requires RSTS/E V9.6 or later, since the DECnet/E it relies on is V4.1, which itself requires RSTS/E V9.6 or later. Moving right along: I also wrote an MS-DOS Finger implementation. That isn't as useless as it sounds. If you just say "finger", you get the message "You are the only user, of course". But like RSTS/E Finger, it uses DECnet (Pathworks or whatever product name du jour that product has). The code still exists, but I don't know of any modern Microsoft Windows system that has a DECnet stack available for it. If anyone knows of a DECnet implementation that runs under Windows 10, let me know and I'll resurrect MS-DOS finger as a CLI application for Windows. I can even sign it 8-} Once I have VMS and RSTS/E Finger updated to where I want them, I'd love to have a network interoperability bake-off with as many other implementations as possible. Probably the oddest one I ran into in my testing 30+ years ago was the front-end CPU for a Cray. -- Terri Kennedy

7 months

Kermit-20 Version 5.3(277)-5 Announcement

by Thomas DeBellis

Version 5.3(277)-5 incorporates additional features, enhancements and fixes since edit release 5.3(255)-5 in March of this year (29-Mar-2024). Users of the HECnet community may anonymously transfer files from VENTI2::TOMMYT:<OINKY.K20MIT> and related subdirectories. The changes are summarized below and are further described in TOMMYT:<OINKY.K20MIT.DOCUMENTATION>KERMIT-20_V5_3_277-5-ANNOUNCEMENT.TXT. Rich text is also available in and .PDF and Microsoft .DOCX format. Note that the FAL server on VENTI2:: is *beta code* which required modifications to Tops-20 in order to function properly in an edge case that could happen at boot time. Please email me any issues with FAL transfers off list and I will investigate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [256] /PARITY switch to ECHO for batch and other testing purposes[257] Teach INPUT to respect parity, if asked [258] SET PARITY action /ABORT, /PROCEED [259] Fix a few arcane bugs in the C constant expression expander [260] Fix DEFINE to work (again) with ESCAPE and PARITY [261] Decrease repeated parity error messing [262] Remove the legacy INPUT code that uses BIN%'s [263] Stop using a SIN% for a line at a time read [264] Toggle session logging from command level [265] Fix TTY Input Buffer full when doing a TRANSMIT on a PTY [266] Turn TRANSMIT and CAPTURE increasingly hairy switches in SET parameters [267] Give effective data rate at end of TRANSMIT [268] CAPTURE is no longer hidden. Further document it [269] Review, update and correction of all help text [270] Enhance default for SET PROMPT to give some extra useful information [271] Fix TVT setting; it gets overwritten by automatic processing [272] SET TRANSMIT DEFAULT-PROMPT [273] SET TRANSMIT CASE OBSERVE/IGNORE [274] Fix SET INPUT to better support DEFINE [275] SET TRANSMIT SETTINGS-DEFAULTS for backwards compatibility [276] Fix indirect recursion crash when reporting an error with REALLY short packets [277] Variable blips (so we don't get clobbered for very small packets) Kermit-20-Testing-Battery-5.3(277)-5 Updates Updated Help

7 months, 1 week

backwr?

by Thomas DeBellis

Has anybody ever used this and had success with it? The magic switches, please? backwr.c is a user contribution to klh10 to write tape files that can be 'mounted' on a 10/20. It comes with no documentation nor does it describe its usage. I puzzled out the command line parser and did: ./backwr -c -T -f ../k20mit-277/k20mit-277.tar > k20tar.tap I want to copy the tar file off the tape to try to read it on the 20 with the 20's implementation of tar. However, when I try to copy the file off the tape, I get ?File data error on file MTA0: If not backwr, what are alternative solutions? The klh10 micro-engine's NI implementation has odd behavior in that if you do a download, you get megabit speeds. If you try to upload on the other hand, you can barely crack 1 kilobaud. So I'm currently uploading the tarball with Kermit, but at 1KBd, it's going to take three days.

7 months, 1 week

narkive.com

by Keith Halewood

Hi, I've been using narkive.com in readonly mode to look at comp.os.vms until fairly recently. Now my browser is making the connection and it's being dropped by the other end.... that is, when I'm calling from a UK IP address. If I change my location (access to several UK and non-UK points of presence) to an non-UK address, I can connect without a problem. So far 8 uk-based ISPs (mobile and residential) are being dropped and 6 non-uk (US E, US W, Lux, Japan and Aus) are ok. Pinging works from all. Has narkive.com blocked connections from UK addresses? Keith

7 months, 2 weeks

Are your processes not using any time?

by Thomas DeBellis

I had been making some efficiency tweaks to a few things, particularly GLXLIB, the Galaxy Object Time System when I began to notice that programs sometimes appeared to not be using any processor time at all. I found that the normal JSYS that returns fork run time (RUNTM%) only gives millisecond resolution. Tops-20 exposes a 100 Khz interface via the HPTIM% JSYS. 'High precision' in this case meant the maximum internal clock rate of the DK10 real time clock. So, although the KL10 had a megahertz clock, Tops-20 lops off a decimal order of magnitude, presumably to remain compatible with TENEX. The maximum resolution is thus 10 microseconds, a hundred times the RUNTM% resolution. Unfortunately, the HPTIM% JSYS only works for your own process, not others. So, I modified the monitor code to be able to get high precision run times for any forks in the job. I then modified the EXEC to display the high precision times if requested. What I also found out was that, by default, the EXEC will only display a tenth of a second, whereas RUNTM% will return two decimal orders of magnitude more. The comparisons below are perhaps of interest. About the shortest I've seen is 1.5 ms (0.00015). Given the increasing speed of simulations, one assumes that DK10 resolution will be exceeded at some point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $i fork ORION (1): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.1 QUASAR (2): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.0 MOUNTR (3): Background, SLEEP at 2420, 0:00:00.0 BATCON (4): Background, SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.1 NMLT20 (5): Background, SLEEP at US%DES+165, 0:00:00.0 => FAL (6): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.0 Fork 13: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.0 Fork 12: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.0 Fork 11: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.0 Fork 10: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.0 Fork 7: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.0 $ $i fork /high-precision ORION (1): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.12459 QUASAR (2): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.05135 MOUNTR (3): Background, SLEEP at 2420, 0:00:00.06751 BATCON (4): Background, SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.19957 NMLT20 (5): Background, SLEEP at US%DES+165, 0:00:00.09560 => FAL (6): Background, SLEEP at 767721, 0:00:00.08322 Fork 13: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.01310 Fork 12: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.01577 Fork 11: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.00381 Fork 10: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.00362 Fork 7: SLEEP at 767723, 0:00:00.00320

8 months, 1 week

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet