[HECnet] Downtime next week

On 20/08/09 09:41, Johnny Billquist wrote: Gregg Levine wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Steve Davidson<jeep at scshome.net> wrote: What you really want to try for is a DECserver 90TL. This will do Telnet and LAT in both directions. Let's not forget smaller/lighter and easier on the electric bill. Don't forget the power supply, or the mini-rack (includes power supply), or the DEChub-90 backplane to power this. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of Sampsa Laine Sent: Wed 8/19/2009 12:52 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: Re: [HECnet] Downtime next week On 19 Aug 2009, at 07:20, Gregg Levine wrote: Hello! I am both relieved in thinking that I am not the only one on this list to be considered like that, and jealous especially considering the DECserver 200. I've been trying to track down one of those beasts for a very long while now. Practically the entire time period that I've known (in a matter of speaking) all of you on this list, plus the few I know from two other lists. (Three even.) I got mine off ebay, a quick look on US ebay shows that there are plenty of them available, e.g.: DECserver 700-16: http://cgi.ebay.com/DEC-Digital-DECserver-700-DSRVW-ZC-700-16_W0QQitemZ2903… DECserver 200/MC: http://cgi.ebay.com/Digital-DECserver-200-MC-DSRVB-A_W0QQitemZ130324846349Q… Sampsa Hello! Steve I have three here, all DEC Server 90s. They aren't exactly friendly to the Linux-DECNet code. Whereas the 200s are more to their liking (The code base that is.) However there's something about the basic 200 that resembles the PDP background for them...... There are plenty of problems with the Linux LAT code (this isn't DECnet). I tried looking at it a few years ago, but decided that it would be easier to rewrite all of it instead of trying to fix that code. But then I got sidetracked (as often happens), so I haven't done anything about it. Several people have already come to that conclusion, including me! It was written while I was reverse-engineering it so it's built up as a heap of guesses on top of other guesses. It works most of the time, to VMS, but as I didn't (and still don't) have anything else to test against that's where it stayed. I don't even have many DECservers to test against any more, my 90s power supply died (twice) and the 200 melted after the fans broke down :-( So the code languishes in its current state. That said, I have also had problems with the Linux DECnet code. Christine might remember me complaining in the past. :-) It works fine with VMS, but horribly with RSX (which also is true of the LAT code). Although I've not tried doing much with Linux DECnet to RSX it's always seemed to work for me when I have tried it. I suspect that any problems here are much easier to fix. Even though the main protocol is in the kernel (unlike LAT) it's pretty solid code, so anything that needs fixing will most likely be in userspace. Most (though not all!) of that was written from proper specifications so should be easier to work with than LAT. Then again ... I've not had any bug reports from anyone about either and it's quite hard to fix bugs you don't know about :-P Chrissie