15 Apr
2015
15 Apr
'15
7:57 p.m.
On 2015-04-15 19:47, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:
Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
That was even less than what RSX knows...
In NFT or RSX, I can see the following:
1 - RT-11
2 - RSTS/E
3 - RSX-11S
4 - RSX-11M
5 - RSX-11D
6 - IAS
7 - VAX/VMS
8 - TOPS-20
9 - TOPS-10
10 - RTS-8
11 - OS-8
12 - RSX-11M+
13 - COPOS/11 (TOPS-20 frontend)
14 - P/OS
15 - VAXELAN
16 - CP/M
17 - MS-DOS
18 - Ultrix-32
19 - Ultrix-11
20 - DTF/MVS
And I discovered that Windows NT seems to have the number 25, but I have
no idea about 21-24.
And for filesystems, RSX knows:
1 - RMS-11
2 - RMS-20
3 - RMS-32
4 - FCS-11
5 - RT-11
6 - No file system
7 - TOPS-20
8 - TOPS-10
9 - OS-8
10 - RMS-32S
11 - CP/M
12 - MS-DOS
13 - Ultrix-32
14 - Ultrix-11
15 - DTF/MVS
And in addition to this, a Windows NT machine I tested against gave the
number 19, which I then assume is NTFS. That leave 16-18 as totally
unknown...
Johnny
On 2015-04-15 19:17, Brian Schenkenberger,
VAXman- wrote:
The DAP spec. V5.6.0 says:
0 - Illegal
1 - RT-11
2 - RSTS/E
3 - RSX-11S
4 - RSX-11M
5 - RSX-11D
6 - IAS
7 - VAX/VMS
8 - TOPS-20
9 - TOPS-10
10- RTS-8
11- OS-8
12- RSX-11M+
13- COPOS/11 (TOPS-20 Front End)
I checked in LIB.REQ on VMS V8.4 and there are only symbolic definitions for
the first 5:
literal NMA$C_SYS_RST = 1; ! Rsts
literal NMA$C_SYS_RSX = 2; ! Rsx family
literal NMA$C_SYS_TOP = 3; ! Tops-20
literal NMA$C_SYS_VMS = 4; ! Vms
literal NMA$C_SYS_RT = 5; ! RT-11 Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
writes:
Speaking of that, I became curious about a couple of details of the DAP
protocol when I was fixing the RSX implementation a while ago.
There are a couple of fields in that protocol that identifies the remote
operating system and remote file system, and obviously there are a whole
set of values these can have. I'd like to update those tables, but do
anyone have an fairly recent, authoritative source?
Also, RSX implements DAP V7.1, while VMS has DAP V7.2. Does anyone know
what the differences are? On 04/15/2015 11:58 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Seems to me you are just hitting the problems with the Linux DECnet
> code, since that has pretty much only been tested against VMS, and
> probably are breaking the protocol all over the place...
> I know that transferring stream files from VMS to RSX works fine, with
> RSX converting them to variable length records.
> Like I said before, I have had essentially no luck in using Linux DECnet
> against RSX systems. Not only file transfers, but things like PHONE also
> do not work.
Yes, it looks like that's what's going on. That sucks. I would love
to pick up the maintenance of that code, but I don't know DECnet
internals at all and would be starting from scratch there. I know I
could handle the code, but the required time to come up to speed is an
obstacle.
I have, printed, all DECnet (circa Pase IV) specs here; however, they are
on-line if you Google them.