On 2014-05-21 01:41, Cory Smelosky wrote:
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.
Smoked the uVAX? That's a bad sign. I would otherwise have guessed that maybe your memory card is not actually strapped to address 0 when you look at all 22 bits?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 2014-05-20 23:25, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I would not think so. If you have a device driver for something that
there is no hardware for, the device should just become offline.
That's what I was thinking...but for the sake of troubleshooting it
stayed on the table.
Fair enough. But no, RSX should deal fine with a device not actually being there.
Not sure exactly what you configured, but maybe something wrong in
all your answers... :-)
I'll grab the log when back at my desk.
That could help. :-)
https://ghostbin.com/paste/zo8dc
Ok. So the only funny thing in here is that it is detecting a device at CSR 160404. Autoconfiguration says it should be a tape controller, but I suspect it is not... :-)
However, since you later configure the tape controller to another address anyway, there shouldn't even be anything poking at that device, so I would not expect it to cause any trouble...
Could you paste the result of the output from the SYSGEN as well. There are some other bits that can be interested later on.
What garbage that might be left in memory should not be a problem.
Memory always have content...
Mmm. right. I'm out of ideas then.
We need to learn more... :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Looks like I just found the RSX-11M+ 4.3 distrib. tape image. Set SIMH to an 11/23 with 1M (non-plus, it identified as a plus to AUTOCONFIGURE though)
150 IMAGE Store of MOIRA$DKA100:[CSMELOSKY]RSX11MPLUS43.DSK;1 started.
Ready to shove the SCSI controller in my VAX and do the copy!
Wish me luck!
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 05/20/2014 04:52 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Didn't you advise me against running M+ on an 11/24 for reasons of no
split I/D space? It's not that it won't work, it's that it won't be
pleasant. M (non +) runs great on F11-based systems anyway.
I don't know (remember) what I might have said. But depending on
different things, running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 can be a little
painful. But running 11M in general is more painful than M+ anyway, so I
would at least recommend trying M+.
Well, I have a personal desire to run M...I ran it for many years
25-30 years ago, and I like it. I've never had much experience with M+.
I will definitely run M+ on the machines I have that are capable of
running it, though.
(That said, without split I/D-space, you'll have preciously little pool
space, but that might not be a big issue for you right here.)
I think that was why.
Yeah. Without supervisor mode and split I/D-space, you will have very
little system pool. If you are not running a bunch of things on the
system, you should still be able to survive though.
Oh, and my TCP/IP will not work on those systems.
THAT was it, I wanted to run your IP stack. I ended up setting it up
(the OS, not yet your IP stack) on an 11/44 instead.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
