Hello!
I (think) I am following the correct NCL syntax here...but..
ncl> create node 0 routing circuit csmacd-0 type = csma-cd
ncl> set node 0 routing circuit csmacd-0 data link entity csma-cd
ncl> set node 0 routing circuit csmacd-0 enable phaseiv address true
ncl> enable node 0 routing circuit csmacd-0
Node 0 Routing Circuit csmacd-0
AT 2013-02-13-13:05:26.514-05:00I-----
FAILED IN DIRECTIVE: Enable
DUE TO: Error specific to this entity's class
REASON: Open Port Failed
Description: The Open Port call to the specified Data Link failed
Any ideas what i'm doing wrong?
On 2013-02-13 18:52, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-13 16:09, Clem Cole wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
Well, the 11/70 easily outlived the 11/44, in that 11/70 machines
were still sold after the 11/44 was terminated, as far as I know.
Interesting data. I'm a little surprised to hear it because DEC was
clearly trying to get the traditional 11/70 customer to move to the VAX
line in those days.
Oh, DEC tried. It was just that the VAXen didn't deliver the goods for all customers. The real pain point was realtime stuff. Interrupt latencies on a VAX is horrible compared to a PDP-11. And VMS don't help.
I still have an RT-32 button from when the RT-11 folks were subversively pushing the notion that they could make a VAX do realtime.
:-)
I've posted it before, but the current comment in the RSX sources are fun:
;+
; If we cannot process a clock interrupt within 10 seconds, we are
; no longer processing in real time, and we may as well become
; a VAX ... Call an end to this ... NOW!
;-
BGCK$A BF.SAN,BE.IDC,<FATAL> ;;; System massively confused
Fun detail: when devices want to MOP boot on a network where you have both a VAX and a PDP-11, the PDP-11 normally ends up serving the image, since it responds much faster than the VAX.
That's because the VMS MOP server did its lookup for a match in the node database by a linear search. I never could convince the engineer responsible for that code to use a better algorithm.
Which is silly in it self. Why even search the node database? After all, the MOP request holds all the information needed to serve it. RSX don't do a lookup at a boot request. It just serves it.
But even so, it is surprising that even a fairly modern VAX can't keep up with a PDP-11 here.
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 2013-02-13 17:58, Bill Pechter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com
<mailto:clemc at ccc.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
Well, the 11/70 easily outlived the 11/44, in that 11/70
machines were still sold after the 11/44 was terminated, as far
as I know.
Interesting data. I'm a little surprised to hear it because DEC
was clearly trying to get the traditional 11/70 customer to move to
the VAX line in those days. I wonder if the 70 was used in some
commercial settings where they wanted a real duplicate. Unlike the
Nova/Esclipe the VAX had a "compatibility mode" but it was a tad
impure. The OS was different and binaries did not work with some
assistance. Other than running Dungeon and few other games, I
never knew a customer that used compatibility mode in production -
it was a great sales tools, but once folks got their VAX they tended
to do a "full port" of the code. So swapping a VAX besides
costing more, meant some systems/SW work on the customers part.
That was not true of the 11/44.
I remember buying an 11/44 for use where we did not need (could not
afford an VAX for that use) but wanted the larger address space over
the 40 class machines. We had a very large 11/70 and were also
buying Vaxen at the time,
That particular machine was the last 11 I ever personally was part
of the purchase and I moved on to other things, so I sort of stopped
watching the progress of the PDP11 line. I know the QBUS gave the
11 some amount of resurgence, although by then most of us were using
Vaxen or 68K based UNIX boxes.
Thanks for the information.
Clem
I thought the 11/70 couldn't be sold past about 1984 or 85.
Some FCC Regulations on emissions blocked new ones. They didn't want to
reengineer and retrofit them.
As far as I remember and understand, that was the case for the original 11/70. And I understood it that the DEC DATASYSTEM 570 (ie, the 11//0 in a corporate cabinet) was done to solve the FCC issues.
They pulled back all the ones they could from the field and regional
offices (replacing some with the rare 11/74 KB11Cm boxes) so they could
sell refurbs to AT&T (who purchased a ton for COSMOS and other network
functions).
I worked at DEC in 1986, and we had at least four 11/70 machines (all corporate cabinets) running at that point in the office.
I know and heard of lots of other 11/70 machines out in the field way later than that too. I think it was something like 911 in Los Angeles who ran on a couple of 11/70 into 2000 or beyond, for example.
I had the fun of troubleshooting an 11/74 single cpu and parts were
really rare.
I bet. I wish I had one. I've seen the pictures of CASTOR, with all four CPUs, but the whereabouts of that machine now is unknown. It was dismantled in 2000 or 2001, if I remember right.
I seem to remember 11/44's being sold until the 11/84 came out. A
google search said it was in '88, two years after I left DEC...
The 11/84 came out way earlier.
The technical manual for it that I have is dated 1985.
(See http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/1184/)
I can believe that the 11/84 made the 11/44 obsolete, however. They fulfill the same niche, with the 11/84 being faster, smaller and probably cheaper.
I'm pretty sure the 11/70 may have outlived the 11/44 on used and refurb
boxes, only.
That might be.
Funny thing. I just read a little in the 11/44 Technical Manual, and it says it is meant for (among other things), TRAX, and refers to TRAX V2.0. That sounds like it must have been a product for more than a week, or else they released V2 super fast.
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 Feb 13, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-13 16:09, Clem Cole wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
Well, the 11/70 easily outlived the 11/44, in that 11/70 machines
were still sold after the 11/44 was terminated, as far as I know.
Interesting data. I'm a little surprised to hear it because DEC was
clearly trying to get the traditional 11/70 customer to move to the VAX
line in those days.
Oh, DEC tried. It was just that the VAXen didn't deliver the goods for all customers. The real pain point was realtime stuff. Interrupt latencies on a VAX is horrible compared to a PDP-11. And VMS don't help.
I still have an RT-32 button from when the RT-11 folks were subversively pushing the notion that they could make a VAX do realtime.
Fun detail: when devices want to MOP boot on a network where you have both a VAX and a PDP-11, the PDP-11 normally ends up serving the image, since it responds much faster than the VAX.
That's because the VMS MOP server did its lookup for a match in the node database by a linear search. I never could convince the engineer responsible for that code to use a better algorithm.
paul
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Well, the 11/70 easily outlived the 11/44, in that 11/70 machines were still sold after the 11/44 was terminated, as far as I know.
Interesting data. I'm a little surprised to hear it because DEC was clearly trying to get the traditional 11/70 customer to move to the VAX line in those days. I wonder if the 70 was used in some commercial settings where they wanted a real duplicate. Unlike the Nova/Esclipe the VAX had a "compatibility mode" but it was a tad impure. The OS was different and binaries did not work with some assistance. Other than running Dungeon and few other games, I never knew a customer that used compatibility mode in production - it was a great sales tools, but once folks got their VAX they tended to do a "full port" of the code. So swapping a VAX besides costing more, meant some systems/SW work on the customers part. That was not true of the 11/44.
I remember buying an 11/44 for use where we did not need (could not afford an VAX for that use) but wanted the larger address space over the 40 class machines. We had a very large 11/70 and were also buying Vaxen at the time,
That particular machine was the last 11 I ever personally was part of the purchase and I moved on to other things, so I sort of stopped watching the progress of the PDP11 line. I know the QBUS gave the 11 some amount of resurgence, although by then most of us were using Vaxen or 68K based UNIX boxes.
Thanks for the information.
Clem
I thought the 11/70 couldn't be sold past about 1984 or 85.
Some FCC Regulations on emissions blocked new ones. They didn't want to reengineer and retrofit them.
They pulled back all the ones they could from the field and regional offices (replacing some with the rare 11/74 KB11Cm boxes) so they could sell refurbs to AT&T (who purchased a ton for COSMOS and other network functions).
I had the fun of troubleshooting an 11/74 single cpu and parts were really rare.
I seem to remember 11/44's being sold until the 11/84 came out. A google search said it was in '88, two years after I left DEC...
I'm pretty sure the 11/70 may have outlived the 11/44 on used and refurb boxes, only.
Bill
--
d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com
On 02/13/2013 03:48 AM, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
I switch off data mode on my phone owing to the volume on this list
and get out of sync with the messageflow.
What I find interesting is that you seemed able to load the licenses
while the entered information was incorrect?
It's possible to *generate* a license with anything in the fields.
LMF will load it regardless of the contents, as long as the checksum
works, as far as I know.
Now, as far as what the app is requesting of LMF, that's a different
story...that was what happened here.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 02/13/2013 08:49 AM, Brett Bump wrote:
I consider it your trademark. ;) That said, though, personally I find
the conversations here quite stimulating!
You should see a doctor about that condition Dave. You might have Exzema,
Psoriasis, who knows? It might even turn into Loose Bowel Syndrome. ;-)
As "Sweet Brown" says, "Ain't nobody got time for that."
There are pills for that now, you know! ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
[mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Jordi
Guillaumes i Pons
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:39
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: [HECnet] DECNET-RT
Can I haz it? :)
Seriously, what kind of beast was that one? Phase-IV? End-node only?
Does anybody have a kit around? ;)
DECnet/RT was (is) phase-III, end-node without NIC support.
-Steve
On 2013-02-13 16:09, Clem Cole wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
Well, the 11/70 easily outlived the 11/44, in that 11/70 machines
were still sold after the 11/44 was terminated, as far as I know.
Interesting data. I'm a little surprised to hear it because DEC was
clearly trying to get the traditional 11/70 customer to move to the VAX
line in those days.
Oh, DEC tried. It was just that the VAXen didn't deliver the goods for all customers. The real pain point was realtime stuff. Interrupt latencies on a VAX is horrible compared to a PDP-11. And VMS don't help.
Fun detail: when devices want to MOP boot on a network where you have both a VAX and a PDP-11, the PDP-11 normally ends up serving the image, since it responds much faster than the VAX.
This has been observed with a PDP-11/93 on the same network as a VAX 4000-96 (if I remember the designation right).
I wonder if the 70 was used in some commercial
settings where they wanted a real duplicate.
No. The 11/70 just delivered more punch than an 11/44, so once the people who just liked the size or cost of the 11/44 had been satisfied, why would anyone buy it? The 11/70 still existed, and delivered more performance.
In reality, the 11/70 gave the most bang, until the 11/9x machines were introduced. And for many, money was less of an issue than performance. Especially as times go by, people want faster machines. Thus also the third party PDP-11 manufacturers who offer even faster PDP-11s, even to this day.
DEC, in its infinite wisdom decided to not make any faster PDP-11s after the 11/70, but instead tried to push those customers to the VAX. The PDP-11 is still in service in many places. Guess DECs strategy didn't work. Customers wanted PDP-11s for other reasons than DEC thought.
DEC let the PDP-11 live as a niche product for small realtime use, where they did recognize that the VAX just could not compete because of price. But faster and larger PDP-11 models would have cut into their VAX business, and thus it did not happen, even though customers wanted.
Unlike the Nova/Esclipe
the VAX had a "compatibility mode" but it was a tad impure. The OS was
different and binaries did not work with some assistance. Other than
running Dungeon and few other games, I never knew a customer that used
compatibility mode in production - it was a great sales tools, but once
folks got their VAX they tended to do a "full port" of the code. So
swapping a VAX besides costing more, meant some systems/SW work on the
customers part. That was not true of the 11/44.
The compatibility mode was used extensively in the early days. At VMS V1, almost everything was running in compatibility mode. You used almost all RSX cusps, all RSX language compilers, and so on.
Native VAX was the kernel, RMS, MACRO-32, LINK, DCL and the replacement for PIP. MACRO-11 and TKB was used for most other stuff.
It wasn't until VMS V4 before most traces of RSX had disappeared. The one exception still at that time was TECO. TECO was eventually made native as well, but that took time (TECO eventually also got a callable interface in VMS, but that was even later.)
Yes, the PDP-11 emulation in the VAX was incomplete in that it only emulated at user mode, and without things like split I/D-space. But within its constraints it worked without problems. Which is why plain RSX binaries runs just fine on VMS.
I remember buying an 11/44 for use where we did not need (could not
afford an VAX for that use) but wanted the larger address space over the
40 class machines. We had a very large 11/70 and were also buying Vaxen
at the time,
Larger address space than an 11/40 is understandable. The 11/44 was more compact than an 11/70. But slower.
That particular machine was the last 11 I ever personally was part of
the purchase and I moved on to other things, so I sort of stopped
watching the progress of the PDP11 line. I know the QBUS gave the 11
some amount of resurgence, although by then most of us were using Vaxen
or 68K based UNIX boxes.
2BSD was rather actively maintained until only a few years ago. I should try contacting Steven Schultz again about my latest set of patches... Do you know what he is up to right now?
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 13 Feb 2013, at 11:00, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2013, at 10:44, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:29, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
You've just reminded me that I want a TOAD-1. ;)
Don't you have a TOAD John W.?
Now i've been reminded of that episode of Space Mall errr Deep Space 9 where they green screened the characters in to that TOS episode...
You mean Deep Space 90210? :)
;)
-brian
Hello!
Group I protest insulting an amusing and almost properly done
spin-off. And as I said that episode wasn't done that way, it was done
using the advanced hardware bought for an interesting film......
I'm not entirely insulting the show, just poking fun at it and the fact they almost never left the damn station. ;)
Enterprise however...that's a different story.
Oh and what's that big foot (and yeti) doing where you are Cory?
Trying to steal my Tru64 Documentation set disc.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
