From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 2 00:12:02 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Jarratt RMA) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:12:02 -0500 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? Message-ID: I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently being added to SIMH. I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready made it would be a big help. Thanks Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 00:14:19 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 04:14:19 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that > wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently > being added to SIMH. > > I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX > system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready > made it would be a big help. > > Thanks > > Rob > If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS pretty quickly. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 06:28:36 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:28:36 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > >> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that >> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >> being added to SIMH. >> >> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX >> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready >> made it would be a big help. >> >> Thanks >> >> Rob >> > > If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS > pretty quickly. Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license manager facility existed? As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. Johnny From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 07:17:05 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:17:05 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable it. It's kicking around the net. Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between adjacent Phases... So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> anything. But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the -20. Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>> that >>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>> being added to SIMH. >>> >>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>> RSX >>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>> ready >>> made it would be a big help. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Rob >>> >> >> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >> pretty quickly. > > Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license > manager facility existed? > > As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems > around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. > > Johnny > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 2 07:42:09 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Jarratt RMA) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:42:09 -0500 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> Message-ID: As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and I would need. If someone can provide a link for the earlier license kit that would be great. Regards Rob On 2 August 2013 06:17, Timothe Litt wrote: > DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable it. > It's kicking around the net. > > Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is one) > can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between adjacent > Phases... > > So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> > anything. > > But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the -20. > > Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same > requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) > > So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk I've > restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > > On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>> that >>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>>> being added to SIMH. >>>> >>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>> RSX >>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>> ready >>>> made it would be a big help. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >>> pretty quickly. >>> >> >> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >> manager facility existed? >> >> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >> >> Johnny >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Simh mailing list >> Simh at trailing-edge.com >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.**com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at jfcl.com Fri Aug 2 09:53:40 2013 From: bob at jfcl.com (Bob Armstrong) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:53:40 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> Message-ID: <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> >As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, >I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and > I would need. I don't think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 12:16:56 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:16:56 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that >>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>> being added to SIMH. >>> >>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX >>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready >>> made it would be a big help. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Rob >>> >> >> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >> pretty quickly. > > Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license > manager facility existed? Yes, but this is when the license kit was a little executable that flipped some registers and whatnot. > > As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems > around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. > > Johnny > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 12:27:24 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:27:24 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> Message-ID: <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 15:53, Bob Armstrong wrote: >>As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, > >>I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and > >> I would need. > > I don?t think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper > variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work > without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? That's what I said. But maybe the reference to there not being a LMF was a bit too cryptic... :-) Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. I thought it might have been something that came in V5. 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 From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 12:37:49 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:37:49 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > On 2013-08-02 15:53, Bob Armstrong wrote: >>> As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, >> >>> I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and >> >>> I would need. >> >> I don?t think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper >> variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work >> without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? > > That's what I said. But maybe the reference to there not being a LMF was > a bit too cryptic... :-) > > Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. I thought it might have > been something that came in V5. Yeah, LMF came in in V5. > > Johnny > > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 13:08:50 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:08:50 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an optional routing header to support this. The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address space and never released. I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the present.) Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too worried about 'official support' :-) Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it turned out that way.) We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he can scare up a kit. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >> it. It's kicking around the net. > > Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? > >> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >> adjacent Phases... > > I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure > T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation > is out there, so it should be easy to verify. > > I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else > went beyond that. > >> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >> anything. > > Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all > the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very > limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I > think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the > details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to > to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if > you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. > >> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >> -20. > > Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are > still various limitations around. > >> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >> >> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > > :-) > > Time. Always a problem. > > Johnny > >> >> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >> if any, on the matters discussed. >> >> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>> that >>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>> currently >>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>> >>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>>> RSX >>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>> ready >>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>> VMS >>>> pretty quickly. >>> >>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>> manager facility existed? >>> >>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Simh mailing list >>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 13:20:26 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> Message-ID: <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: > TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good > memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node > initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) > PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And > yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept > nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an > optional routing header to support this. Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually > Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation > actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking > Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to > Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really important. > The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS > couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to > squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address > space and never released. MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet > Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the > present.) :-) > Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too > worried about 'official support' :-) Good point too. > Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an > engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user > interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still > offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it > turned out that way.) Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he > can scare up a kit. Good luck! Johnny > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>> it. It's kicking around the net. >> >> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >> >>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>> adjacent Phases... >> >> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >> >> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >> went beyond that. >> >>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>> anything. >> >> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >> >>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>> -20. >> >> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >> still various limitations around. >> >>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>> >>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >> >> :-) >> >> Time. Always a problem. >> >> Johnny >> >>> >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>> >>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>> that >>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>> currently >>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>>>> RSX >>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>> ready >>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>> VMS >>>>> pretty quickly. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>> manager facility existed? >>>> >>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Simh mailing list >>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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 From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 13:32:36 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:32:36 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> > Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty good". 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that resulted in better data. The bits say Phase II. Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 00 00 This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. >> 58 Startup message >> 01 Node init >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. >> 06 Image byte count >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 >> 00 No intercept functions >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification >>00 01 Blocksize 256. >>00 01 NSPsize 256. >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: >> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good >> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node >> initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. > > Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. > (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) > >> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And >> yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept >> nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an >> optional routing header to support this. > > Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > >> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually >> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation >> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking >> Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to >> Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. > > Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV > which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still > talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really > important. > >> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS >> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to >> squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address >> space and never released. > > MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase > II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the > link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > >> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet >> Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the >> present.) > > :-) > >> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too >> worried about 'official support' :-) > > Good point too. > >> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an >> engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user >> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still >> offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it >> turned out that way.) > > Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > >> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he >> can scare up a kit. > > Good luck! > > Johnny > >> >> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >> if any, on the matters discussed. >> >> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>>> it. It's kicking around the net. >>> >>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >>> >>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>>> adjacent Phases... >>> >>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >>> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >>> >>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >>> went beyond that. >>> >>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>>> anything. >>> >>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >>> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >>> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >>> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >>> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >>> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >>> >>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>>> -20. >>> >>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >>> still various limitations around. >>> >>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>>> >>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Time. Always a problem. >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>>> >>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>>> >>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have >>>>>>> generated an >>>>>>> RSX >>>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>>> ready >>>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>>> VMS >>>>>> pretty quickly. >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>>> manager facility existed? >>>>> >>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>>> >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Simh mailing list >>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From bob at jfcl.com Fri Aug 2 14:25:42 2013 From: bob at jfcl.com (Bob Armstrong) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:25:42 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> Message-ID: <003701ce8fad$b2a36550$17ea2ff0$@com> > Johnny Billquist wrote: >Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. > I thought it might have been something that came in V5. Like Cory said, LMF came with VMS V5. HOWEVER (as somebody else already said too) VMS V4 DECnet had a special "key" for DECnet only. It wasn't LMF, but it was a separate license kit for DECnet. Needless to say there were two versions of the key - end node and routing. I'm pretty sure VMS V3 and prior had nothing of the sort. If you had the DECnet kit, it'd run once you installed it. Bob From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 14:28:12 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:28:12 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> <003701ce8fad$b2a36550$17ea2ff0$@com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Bob Armstrong wrote: > >> Johnny Billquist wrote: >> Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. >> I thought it might have been something that came in V5. > > Like Cory said, LMF came with VMS V5. > > HOWEVER (as somebody else already said too) VMS V4 DECnet had a special > "key" for DECnet only. It wasn't LMF, but it was a separate license kit for > DECnet. Needless to say there were two versions of the key - end node and > routing. > > I'm pretty sure VMS V3 and prior had nothing of the sort. If you had the > DECnet kit, it'd run once you installed it. I've tried VMS V3 and I recall it needed a key similar to V4's. I may have had a weird version of V3 though... > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 20:11:59 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 02:11:59 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> Message-ID: <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 19:32, Timothe Litt wrote: >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before > I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty > good". :-) > 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't > match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. Right. There is a connection between NSP versions and DECnet phases, but it's not that straight forward. I believe NSP 3.0.0 is phase II. I know that NSP 3.1.0 is phase II. NSP 3.2.0 is DECnet phase III. NSP 4.0.0 is phase IV. I did some hunting around and yeah, phase III appears to have come with DECnet-20 V3, which was for TOPS-20 V5 only. So the KS appears to have stuck at phase II. Oh well... MRC definitely got phase IV running on TOPS-20 on a KS. I'm surprised that he pulled that out from just a phase II implementation, along with whatever had been done on KL around the time (not sure how much further the KL had come when MRC did his work.) Johnny > > As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that resulted > in better data. The bits say Phase II. > > Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): > > 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 00 00 > > This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. > > >> 58 Startup message > >> 01 Node init > >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. > >> 06 Image byte count > >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 > >> 00 No intercept functions > >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification > >>00 01 Blocksize 256. > >>00 01 NSPsize 256. > >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. > >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 > >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 > >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) > > Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: >>> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good >>> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node >>> initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. >> >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. >> (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) >> >>> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And >>> yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept >>> nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an >>> optional routing header to support this. >> >> Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) >> >>> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually >>> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation >>> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking >>> Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to >>> Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. >> >> Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV >> which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still >> talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really >> important. >> >>> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS >>> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to >>> squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address >>> space and never released. >> >> MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase >> II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the >> link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... >> >>> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet >>> Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the >>> present.) >> >> :-) >> >>> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too >>> worried about 'official support' :-) >> >> Good point too. >> >>> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an >>> engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user >>> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still >>> offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it >>> turned out that way.) >> >> Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. >> >>> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he >>> can scare up a kit. >> >> Good luck! >> >> Johnny >> >>> >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>> >>> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>>>> it. It's kicking around the net. >>>> >>>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >>>> >>>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>>>> adjacent Phases... >>>> >>>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >>>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >>>> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >>>> >>>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >>>> went beyond that. >>>> >>>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>>>> anything. >>>> >>>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >>>> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >>>> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >>>> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >>>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >>>> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >>>> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >>>> >>>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>>>> -20. >>>> >>>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >>>> still various limitations around. >>>> >>>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>>>> >>>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>>>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Time. Always a problem. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>>>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>>>> >>>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have >>>>>>>> generated an >>>>>>>> RSX >>>>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>>>> VMS >>>>>>> pretty quickly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>>>> manager facility existed? >>>>>> >>>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Johnny >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Simh mailing list >>>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Sun Aug 4 17:25:13 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Robert Jarratt) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:25:13 +0100 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> Message-ID: <03d701ce9159$1b1745f0$5145d1d0$@ntlworld.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing- > edge.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist > Sent: 03 August 2013 01:12 > To: Timothe Litt > Cc: simh at trailing-edge.com > Subject: Re: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That > Uses KDP or DUP? > > On 2013-08-02 19:32, Timothe Litt wrote: > >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before > > I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty > > good". > > :-) > > > 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't > > match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. > > Right. There is a connection between NSP versions and DECnet phases, but > it's not that straight forward. > > I believe NSP 3.0.0 is phase II. > I know that NSP 3.1.0 is phase II. > NSP 3.2.0 is DECnet phase III. > NSP 4.0.0 is phase IV. > > I did some hunting around and yeah, phase III appears to have come with > DECnet-20 V3, which was for TOPS-20 V5 only. So the KS appears to have > stuck at phase II. Oh well... > > MRC definitely got phase IV running on TOPS-20 on a KS. I'm surprised that > he pulled that out from just a phase II implementation, along with whatever > had been done on KL around the time (not sure how much further the KL > had come when MRC did his work.) > > Johnny > > > > > As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that > > resulted in better data. The bits say Phase II. > > > > Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): > > > > 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 > > 00 00 > > > > This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. > > > > >> 58 Startup message > > >> 01 Node init > > >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. > > >> 06 Image byte count > > >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 > > >> 00 No intercept functions > > >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification > > >>00 01 Blocksize 256. > > >>00 01 NSPsize 256. > > >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. > > >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 > > >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 > > >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) > > > > Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. > > > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on > > the matters discussed. > > > > On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: > >>> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good > >>> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the > >>> node initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. > >> > >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. > >> (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.ht > >> ml) > >> > >>> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. > >>> And yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called > >>> "intercept nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II > >>> messages have an optional routing header to support this. > >> > >> Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > >> > >>> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually > >>> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation > >>> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while > >>> talking Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest > >>> way to get to Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became > smart. > >> > >> Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV > >> which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still > >> talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really > >> important. > >> > >>> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS > >>> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed > >>> to squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on > >>> address space and never released. > >> > >> MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase > >> II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the > >> link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > >> > >>> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run > >>> DECnet Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, > >>> thru the > >>> present.) > >> > >> :-) > >> > >>> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too > >>> worried about 'official support' :-) > >> > >> Good point too. > >> > >>> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is > >>> an engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user > >>> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP > >>> still offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame > >>> that it turned out that way.) > >> > >> Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > >> > >>> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob > >>> thinks he can scare up a kit. > >> > >> Good luck! > >> > >> Johnny > >> > >>> > >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on > >>> the matters discussed. > >>> > >>> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >>>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: > >>>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to > >>>>> enable it. It's kicking around the net. > >>>> > >>>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? > >>>> > >>>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS > >>>>> is > >>>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only > >>>>> between adjacent Phases... > >>>> > >>>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure > >>>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The > >>>> documentation is out there, so it should be easy to verify. > >>>> > >>>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else > >>>> went beyond that. > >>>> > >>>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> > >>>>> anything. > >>>> > >>>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect > >>>> all the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the > >>>> very limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other > >>>> oddities. (I think a topology like a star was supported, but I > >>>> can't remember the > >>>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node > >>>> to to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, > >>>> if you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. > >>>> > >>>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of > >>>>> the -20. > >>>> > >>>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there > >>>> are still various limitations around. > >>>> > >>>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same > >>>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) > >>>>> > >>>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a > >>>>> disk I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > >>>> > >>>> :-) > >>>> > >>>> Time. Always a problem. > >>>> > >>>> Johnny > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, > >>>>> on the matters discussed. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >>>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet > >>>>>>>> node that wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of > >>>>>>>> which are currently being added to SIMH. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have > >>>>>>>> generated an RSX system once before but struggled a bit, so if > >>>>>>>> anyone has something ready made it would be a big help. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rob > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going > >>>>>>> on VMS pretty quickly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a > >>>>>> license manager facility existed? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such > >>>>>> systems around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long > ago. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Johnny > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Simh mailing list > >>>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com > >>>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh I thought I would try to see if I can get Phase III onto a VAX SIMH image. I have NETRTG031 (like BE-X083A-BE from http://iamvirtual.ca/VAX11/VAX-11-software.html), but that appears to need VMS 3.4 and so I don't believe it is Phase III. Anyone have an actual DECnet kit for Phase III that will install on VMS 3.3? Whether it needs a key product to unlock like other pre V5 versions of DECnet I am not sure. My other option is going to have to be RSX, but I am pretty poor on RSX and could take a while to get something going there, if anyone has a ready-made RSX image that does Phase III that would be great. Thanks Rob From j_hoppe at t-online.de Wed Aug 14 02:38:43 2013 From: j_hoppe at t-online.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=F6rg_Hoppe?=) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:38:43 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH Message-ID: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Hi, I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet as usual. Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". But I found nothing similar on Linux. Did anybody researched in that direction? Joerg Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: > Hello! > Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the > PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the > latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also fully > updated and upgraded.) > > The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and > mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial port > function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to one > of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to the two > ports there. > > But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I > make use of that one? > > I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly > recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via > Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a > good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working > programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or > even an actual PDP-11 model..... > ----- > Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com > "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Wed Aug 14 02:42:07 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 06:42:07 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH References: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, J?rg Hoppe wrote: > Hi, > > I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this > BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: > > http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone > > One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet as > usual. > Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some > "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. > For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". > But I found nothing similar on Linux. > > Did anybody researched in that direction? > Recent (read: git) SIMH builds allow you to attach the console to a physical port. > Joerg > > > > Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: >> Hello! >> Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the >> PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the >> latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also fully >> updated and upgraded.) >> >> The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and >> mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial port >> function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to one >> of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to the two >> ports there. >> >> But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I >> make use of that one? >> >> I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly >> recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via >> Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a >> good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working >> programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or >> even an actual PDP-11 model..... >> ----- >> Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com >> "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." >> _______________________________________________ >> Simh mailing list >> Simh at trailing-edge.com >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> >> > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From Mark at infocomm.com Wed Aug 14 13:28:33 2013 From: Mark at infocomm.com (Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:28:33 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH In-Reply-To: References: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <0CC6789C1C831B4C8CCFF49D45D7010F9E8BC10490@REDROOF2.alohasunset.com> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, J?rg Hoppe wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this > > BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: > > > > http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone > > > > One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet > > as usual. > > Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some > > "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. > > For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". > > But I found nothing similar on Linux. > > > > Did anybody researched in that direction? > > > > Recent (read: git) SIMH builds allow you to attach the console to a physical > port. Actually, to be more precise, the latest simh code allows direct connection of not only the console port, but any simulated serial device (DZ, VH, etc.) to physical serial ports. The latest code is available at https://github.com/simh/simh/archive/master.zip - Mark > > Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: > >> Hello! > >> Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the > >> PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the > >> latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also > >> fully updated and upgraded.) > >> > >> The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and > >> mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial > >> port function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to > >> one of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to > >> the two ports there. > >> > >> But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I > >> make use of that one? > >> > >> I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly > >> recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via > >> Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a > >> good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working > >> programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or > >> even an actual PDP-11 model..... > >> ----- > >> Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time > >> Wars, time and again." > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Simh mailing list > >> Simh at trailing-edge.com > >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > >> > >> > > > > -- > Cory Smelosky > http://gewt.net Personal stuff > http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bob at supnik.org Sat Aug 31 10:28:38 2013 From: bob at supnik.org (Bob Supnik) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Tiny bit of progress on RSTS/E RK07 issue Message-ID: <5221FD96.5070909@supnik.org> It looks like there are multiple problems. The first was that the drive type was being misidentified during system startup (in the routine RMLOOK in INIONE.MAC). This was due to a problem in update_hkds, which incorrectly cleared the error register (HKER[drv]) if the drive wasn't attached. In fact, all sorts of errors can be generated by a dismounted drive, including, most critically, drive type error. Without this, the drive is misidentified as an RK06. However, the INIT command still fails with "drive hung", and drive type mismatch errors are occurring. Now I need to trace the driver itself to see why it is trying commands to an identified RK07 with an RK06 drive type. Standalone INIT can initialize an RK07, but then MOUNT fails, so an interaction problem remains between the driver and the simulator. /Bob Supnik From bob at supnik.org Sat Aug 31 15:52:54 2013 From: bob at supnik.org (Bob Supnik) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:52:54 -0400 Subject: [Simh] More on the RK611 Message-ID: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> The RK611 is modeled as though it was a monolithic controller, a la the RP series, in which all the state in both the controller and the drives is interrelated and constantly interlinked. In fact, this is not true. The RK611 is a command-response model; status from the drive is only available in response to a command. Thus, when state in the controller is altered WITHOUT a command (eg, controller clear), the existence of state in the drives cannot be seen. What this means is that the update_hkcs and update_hkds routines are basically wrong. The former can only look at state within the controller. The latter can only look at state within the drive. Information about drive errors is dynamic: it has to be captured when generated, and after that, from the point of view of the controller, "it's gone." In particular, if DTER (drive type error) is generated by a command, it "persists" in the drive, but the actions that resulted in the controller (setting combined error) are ephemeral. A subsequent controller clear will clear combined error, even though the "drive type error" still exists in the drive. So when errors are set, all related consequences (setting ATA if appropriate, setting CERR if appropriate) must be done at the time, and not in the master update_hkcs routine. update_hkcs can only deal with controller state. This will result in a lot of small changes throughout the HK simulator. I've started in, and the result passes an initial smoke test with RT11; but then again, RT always worked. The real tests are RSTS, RSX, and VMS. /Bob From bqt at softjar.se Sat Aug 31 16:20:22 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:20:22 +0200 Subject: [Simh] More on the RK611 In-Reply-To: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> References: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> Message-ID: <52225006.2060203@softjar.se> On 2013-08-31 21:52, Bob Supnik wrote: > The RK611 is modeled as though it was a monolithic controller, a la the > RP series, in which all the state in both the controller and the drives > is interrelated and constantly interlinked. In fact, this is not true. > The RK611 is a command-response model; status from the drive is only > available in response to a command. Thus, when state in the controller > is altered WITHOUT a command (eg, controller clear), the existence of > state in the drives cannot be seen. > > What this means is that the update_hkcs and update_hkds routines are > basically wrong. The former can only look at state within the > controller. The latter can only look at state within the drive. > Information about drive errors is dynamic: it has to be captured when > generated, and after that, from the point of view of the controller, > "it's gone." In particular, if DTER (drive type error) is generated by a > command, it "persists" in the drive, but the actions that resulted in > the controller (setting combined error) are ephemeral. A subsequent > controller clear will clear combined error, even though the "drive type > error" still exists in the drive. > > So when errors are set, all related consequences (setting ATA if > appropriate, setting CERR if appropriate) must be done at the time, and > not in the master update_hkcs routine. update_hkcs can only deal with > controller state. > > This will result in a lot of small changes throughout the HK simulator. > I've started in, and the result passes an initial smoke test with RT11; > but then again, RT always worked. The real tests are RSTS, RSX, and VMS. Bob, I happen to have a simh instance with RSX running, that have RK07 drives defined. RSX have been happy with it so far, but is there something specific you would like me to test, just let me know. 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 From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 2 00:12:02 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Jarratt RMA) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:12:02 -0500 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? Message-ID: I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently being added to SIMH. I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready made it would be a big help. Thanks Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 00:14:19 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 04:14:19 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that > wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently > being added to SIMH. > > I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX > system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready > made it would be a big help. > > Thanks > > Rob > If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS pretty quickly. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 06:28:36 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:28:36 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > >> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that >> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >> being added to SIMH. >> >> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX >> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready >> made it would be a big help. >> >> Thanks >> >> Rob >> > > If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS > pretty quickly. Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license manager facility existed? As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. Johnny From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 07:17:05 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:17:05 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable it. It's kicking around the net. Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between adjacent Phases... So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> anything. But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the -20. Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>> that >>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>> being added to SIMH. >>> >>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>> RSX >>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>> ready >>> made it would be a big help. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Rob >>> >> >> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >> pretty quickly. > > Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license > manager facility existed? > > As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems > around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. > > Johnny > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 2 07:42:09 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Jarratt RMA) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:42:09 -0500 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> Message-ID: As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and I would need. If someone can provide a link for the earlier license kit that would be great. Regards Rob On 2 August 2013 06:17, Timothe Litt wrote: > DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable it. > It's kicking around the net. > > Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is one) > can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between adjacent > Phases... > > So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> > anything. > > But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the -20. > > Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same > requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) > > So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk I've > restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > > On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>> that >>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>>> being added to SIMH. >>>> >>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>> RSX >>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>> ready >>>> made it would be a big help. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >>> pretty quickly. >>> >> >> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >> manager facility existed? >> >> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >> >> Johnny >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Simh mailing list >> Simh at trailing-edge.com >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.**com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at jfcl.com Fri Aug 2 09:53:40 2013 From: bob at jfcl.com (Bob Armstrong) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:53:40 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> Message-ID: <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> >As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, >I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and > I would need. I don't think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 12:16:56 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:16:56 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >> >>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node that >>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are currently >>> being added to SIMH. >>> >>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an RSX >>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something ready >>> made it would be a big help. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Rob >>> >> >> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on VMS >> pretty quickly. > > Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license > manager facility existed? Yes, but this is when the license kit was a little executable that flipped some registers and whatnot. > > As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems > around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. > > Johnny > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 12:27:24 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:27:24 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> Message-ID: <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 15:53, Bob Armstrong wrote: >>As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, > >>I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and > >> I would need. > > I don’t think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper > variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work > without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? That's what I said. But maybe the reference to there not being a LMF was a bit too cryptic... :-) Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. I thought it might have been something that came in V5. 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 From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 12:37:49 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:37:49 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > On 2013-08-02 15:53, Bob Armstrong wrote: >>> As far as I know the license kit that is around is for VMS 4.x and above, >> >>> I don't think there is one for earlier versions, which is what Timothe and >> >>> I would need. >> >> I don’t think DEC used a license of any kind (other than the paper >> variety, that is) prior to VMS v4. Any DECnet for VMS V3 should work >> without any patch or license. Have you tried it? Is that wrong? > > That's what I said. But maybe the reference to there not being a LMF was > a bit too cryptic... :-) > > Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. I thought it might have > been something that came in V5. Yeah, LMF came in in V5. > > Johnny > > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 13:08:50 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:08:50 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an optional routing header to support this. The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address space and never released. I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the present.) Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too worried about 'official support' :-) Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it turned out that way.) We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he can scare up a kit. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >> it. It's kicking around the net. > > Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? > >> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >> adjacent Phases... > > I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure > T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation > is out there, so it should be easy to verify. > > I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else > went beyond that. > >> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >> anything. > > Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all > the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very > limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I > think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the > details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to > to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if > you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. > >> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >> -20. > > Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are > still various limitations around. > >> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >> >> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > > :-) > > Time. Always a problem. > > Johnny > >> >> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >> if any, on the matters discussed. >> >> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>> that >>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>> currently >>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>> >>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>>> RSX >>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>> ready >>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>> VMS >>>> pretty quickly. >>> >>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>> manager facility existed? >>> >>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Simh mailing list >>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 13:20:26 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> Message-ID: <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: > TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good > memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node > initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) > PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And > yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept > nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an > optional routing header to support this. Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually > Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation > actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking > Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to > Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really important. > The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS > couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to > squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address > space and never released. MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet > Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the > present.) :-) > Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too > worried about 'official support' :-) Good point too. > Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an > engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user > interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still > offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it > turned out that way.) Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he > can scare up a kit. Good luck! Johnny > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>> it. It's kicking around the net. >> >> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >> >>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>> adjacent Phases... >> >> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >> >> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >> went beyond that. >> >>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>> anything. >> >> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >> >>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>> -20. >> >> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >> still various limitations around. >> >>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>> >>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >> >> :-) >> >> Time. Always a problem. >> >> Johnny >> >>> >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>> >>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>> that >>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>> currently >>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have generated an >>>>>> RSX >>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>> ready >>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>> VMS >>>>> pretty quickly. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>> manager facility existed? >>>> >>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Simh mailing list >>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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 From litt at ieee.org Fri Aug 2 13:32:36 2013 From: litt at ieee.org (Timothe Litt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:32:36 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> Message-ID: <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> > Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty good". 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that resulted in better data. The bits say Phase II. Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 00 00 This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. >> 58 Startup message >> 01 Node init >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. >> 06 Image byte count >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 >> 00 No intercept functions >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification >>00 01 Blocksize 256. >>00 01 NSPsize 256. >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: >> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good >> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node >> initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. > > Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. > (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) > >> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And >> yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept >> nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an >> optional routing header to support this. > > Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > >> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually >> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation >> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking >> Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to >> Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. > > Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV > which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still > talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really > important. > >> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS >> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to >> squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address >> space and never released. > > MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase > II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the > link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > >> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet >> Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the >> present.) > > :-) > >> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too >> worried about 'official support' :-) > > Good point too. > >> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an >> engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user >> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still >> offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it >> turned out that way.) > > Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > >> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he >> can scare up a kit. > > Good luck! > > Johnny > >> >> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >> if any, on the matters discussed. >> >> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>>> it. It's kicking around the net. >>> >>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >>> >>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>>> adjacent Phases... >>> >>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >>> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >>> >>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >>> went beyond that. >>> >>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>>> anything. >>> >>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >>> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >>> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >>> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >>> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >>> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >>> >>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>>> -20. >>> >>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >>> still various limitations around. >>> >>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>>> >>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Time. Always a problem. >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>>> >>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>>> >>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have >>>>>>> generated an >>>>>>> RSX >>>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>>> ready >>>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>>> VMS >>>>>> pretty quickly. >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>>> manager facility existed? >>>>> >>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>>> >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Simh mailing list >>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5159 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From bob at jfcl.com Fri Aug 2 14:25:42 2013 From: bob at jfcl.com (Bob Armstrong) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:25:42 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> Message-ID: <003701ce8fad$b2a36550$17ea2ff0$@com> > Johnny Billquist wrote: >Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. > I thought it might have been something that came in V5. Like Cory said, LMF came with VMS V5. HOWEVER (as somebody else already said too) VMS V4 DECnet had a special "key" for DECnet only. It wasn't LMF, but it was a separate license kit for DECnet. Needless to say there were two versions of the key - end node and routing. I'm pretty sure VMS V3 and prior had nothing of the sort. If you had the DECnet kit, it'd run once you installed it. Bob From b4 at gewt.net Fri Aug 2 14:28:12 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:28:12 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB9531.3090408@ieee.org> <002e01ce8f87$b24caf10$16e60d30$@com> <51FBDDEC.3050209@softjar.se> <003701ce8fad$b2a36550$17ea2ff0$@com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Bob Armstrong wrote: > >> Johnny Billquist wrote: >> Actually, I'm not sure it was even around in V4. >> I thought it might have been something that came in V5. > > Like Cory said, LMF came with VMS V5. > > HOWEVER (as somebody else already said too) VMS V4 DECnet had a special > "key" for DECnet only. It wasn't LMF, but it was a separate license kit for > DECnet. Needless to say there were two versions of the key - end node and > routing. > > I'm pretty sure VMS V3 and prior had nothing of the sort. If you had the > DECnet kit, it'd run once you installed it. I've tried VMS V3 and I recall it needed a key similar to V4's. I may have had a weird version of V3 though... > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bqt at softjar.se Fri Aug 2 20:11:59 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 02:11:59 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> Message-ID: <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> On 2013-08-02 19:32, Timothe Litt wrote: >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before > I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty > good". :-) > 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't > match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. Right. There is a connection between NSP versions and DECnet phases, but it's not that straight forward. I believe NSP 3.0.0 is phase II. I know that NSP 3.1.0 is phase II. NSP 3.2.0 is DECnet phase III. NSP 4.0.0 is phase IV. I did some hunting around and yeah, phase III appears to have come with DECnet-20 V3, which was for TOPS-20 V5 only. So the KS appears to have stuck at phase II. Oh well... MRC definitely got phase IV running on TOPS-20 on a KS. I'm surprised that he pulled that out from just a phase II implementation, along with whatever had been done on KL around the time (not sure how much further the KL had come when MRC did his work.) Johnny > > As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that resulted > in better data. The bits say Phase II. > > Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): > > 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 00 00 > > This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. > > >> 58 Startup message > >> 01 Node init > >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. > >> 06 Image byte count > >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 > >> 00 No intercept functions > >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification > >>00 01 Blocksize 256. > >>00 01 NSPsize 256. > >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. > >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 > >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 > >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) > > Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > > On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: >>> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good >>> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the node >>> initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. >> >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. >> (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.html) >> >>> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. And >>> yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called "intercept >>> nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II messages have an >>> optional routing header to support this. >> >> Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) >> >>> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually >>> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation >>> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while talking >>> Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest way to get to >>> Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became smart. >> >> Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV >> which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still >> talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really >> important. >> >>> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS >>> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed to >>> squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on address >>> space and never released. >> >> MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase >> II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the >> link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... >> >>> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run DECnet >>> Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, thru the >>> present.) >> >> :-) >> >>> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too >>> worried about 'official support' :-) >> >> Good point too. >> >>> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is an >>> engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user >>> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP still >>> offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame that it >>> turned out that way.) >> >> Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. >> >>> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob thinks he >>> can scare up a kit. >> >> Good luck! >> >> Johnny >> >>> >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>> >>> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: >>>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to enable >>>>> it. It's kicking around the net. >>>> >>>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? >>>> >>>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS is >>>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only between >>>>> adjacent Phases... >>>> >>>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure >>>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The documentation >>>> is out there, so it should be easy to verify. >>>> >>>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else >>>> went beyond that. >>>> >>>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> >>>>> anything. >>>> >>>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect all >>>> the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the very >>>> limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other oddities. (I >>>> think a topology like a star was supported, but I can't remember the >>>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node to >>>> to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, if >>>> you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. >>>> >>>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of the >>>>> -20. >>>> >>>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there are >>>> still various limitations around. >>>> >>>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same >>>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) >>>>> >>>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a disk >>>>> I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Time. Always a problem. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, >>>>> if any, on the matters discussed. >>>>> >>>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet node >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of which are >>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>> being added to SIMH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have >>>>>>>> generated an >>>>>>>> RSX >>>>>>>> system once before but struggled a bit, so if anyone has something >>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>> made it would be a big help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going on >>>>>>> VMS >>>>>>> pretty quickly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a license >>>>>> manager facility existed? >>>>>> >>>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such systems >>>>>> around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Johnny >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Simh mailing list >>>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com >>>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Sun Aug 4 17:25:13 2013 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Robert Jarratt) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:25:13 +0100 Subject: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That Uses KDP or DUP? In-Reply-To: <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> References: <51FB89D4.6090509@softjar.se> <51FB91D1.9030903@ieee.org> <51FBDD54.8090309@softjar.se> <51FBE7A2.5070505@ieee.org> <51FBEA5A.5030605@softjar.se> <51FBED34.2020801@ieee.org> <51FC4ACF.2010405@softjar.se> Message-ID: <03d701ce9159$1b1745f0$5145d1d0$@ntlworld.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing- > edge.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist > Sent: 03 August 2013 01:12 > To: Timothe Litt > Cc: simh at trailing-edge.com > Subject: Re: [Simh] Anyone Have a SIMH Disk Image of a Phase III Node That > Uses KDP or DUP? > > On 2013-08-02 19:32, Timothe Litt wrote: > >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before > > I was wrong. Call it a correctable memory error. Note I said "pretty > > good". > > :-) > > > 3.0 is what shows up if you show exec cha. The NSP version doesn't > > match the DECnet phase in that case, which is what confused matters. > > Right. There is a connection between NSP versions and DECnet phases, but > it's not that straight forward. > > I believe NSP 3.0.0 is phase II. > I know that NSP 3.1.0 is phase II. > NSP 3.2.0 is DECnet phase III. > NSP 4.0.0 is phase IV. > > I did some hunting around and yeah, phase III appears to have come with > DECnet-20 V3, which was for TOPS-20 V5 only. So the KS appears to have > stuck at phase II. Oh well... > > MRC definitely got phase IV running on TOPS-20 on a KS. I'm surprised that > he pulled that out from just a phase II implementation, along with whatever > had been done on KL around the time (not sure how much further the KL > had come when MRC did his work.) > > Johnny > > > > > As I say, I had reason to dig into this more recently, and that > > resulted in better data. The bits say Phase II. > > > > Here are the bits (These were captured by Rob): > > > > 58 01 19 06 54 4F 50 53 32 30 00 06 00 01 00 01 7F 00 03 00 00 03 00 > > 00 00 > > > > This is not a phase III transport init. It's a Phase II NSP node init. > > > > >> 58 Startup message > > >> 01 Node init > > >> 19 Extensible binary node 25. > > >> 06 Image byte count > > >> 54 4F 50 53 32 30 T O P S 2 0 > > >> 00 No intercept functions > > >> 06 Requests: Intercept requested, no node verification > > >>00 01 Blocksize 256. > > >>00 01 NSPsize 256. > > >> 7F 00 Maxlinks 127. > > >> 03 00 00 Routing version 3.0.0 > > >>03 00 00 Comm version 3.0.0 > > >>00 SYSVER length (it's omitted by TOPS-20) > > > > Google AA-D600A-TC for the corresponding spec. > > > > This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on > > the matters discussed. > > > > On 02-Aug-13 13:20, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2013-08-02 19:08, Timothe Litt wrote: > >>> TOPS-20 for the KS is Phase II. Really. Besides having a pretty good > >>> memory, I have recently re-read the sources and have decoded the > >>> node initialization messages actually sent while working on the KDP. > >> > >> Uh. You yourself said it was phase III before. > >> (http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/2013-April/007357.ht > >> ml) > >> > >>> PMR is fine for getting from a Phase II node out past a Phase III. > >>> And yes, Phase II did support star topologies with so-called > >>> "intercept nodes" as routers (well, link forwarders.) Phase II > >>> messages have an optional routing header to support this. > >> > >> Yeah, PMR will do it. Still didn't make it "supported". :-) > >> > >>> The KL did Phase III via the MCB (pdp-11 front ends), and eventually > >>> Phase IV over the KLNIA (ethernet). The phase III implementation > >>> actually had the MCB masquerade as the -20 (Phase III), while > >>> talking Phase II to the -20. Ugly, but at the time, the quickest > >>> way to get to Phase III. Phase IV is when the -20 itself actually became > smart. > >> > >> Pretty much matches what I can recall, except that it was phase IV > >> which was implemented in the FE, while the actual machine was still > >> talking phase III. I guess I could look it up again, if it's really > >> important. > >> > >>> The TOPS-20 group abandoned the KS at Phase II, arguing that the KS > >>> couldn't support the newer, larger monitors. Marc Crispin managed > >>> to squeeze much of the newer code into a KS, but it was very low on > >>> address space and never released. > >> > >> MRC actually squeezed phase IV in. It sounds like you mixed up phase > >> II and phase III here... KS was running phase III. As you said in the > >> link I provided above, you yourself said as much before... > >> > >>> I did not want TOPS-10 to fork, so I made TOPS-10 on the KS run > >>> DECnet Phase IV. TOPS-10 kept the KS going thru the end. (Well, > >>> thru the > >>> present.) > >> > >> :-) > >> > >>> Since I'm probably what's left of DEC in 36-bit land, I'm not too > >>> worried about 'official support' :-) > >> > >> Good point too. > >> > >>> Yes, Phase III is a solid product, as is Phase IV. (But Phase V is > >>> an engineering marvel - that broke all the rules for a sensible user > >>> interface: complexity, compatibility. It's so unpopular that HP > >>> still offers Phase IV as an alternative on VMS today! It's a shame > >>> that it turned out that way.) > >> > >> Right. I know of plenty of people who "downgraded" back to phase IV. > >> > >>> We'll see how far we can get with a VMS 3.something node - Rob > >>> thinks he can scare up a kit. > >> > >> Good luck! > >> > >> Johnny > >> > >>> > >>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on > >>> the matters discussed. > >>> > >>> On 02-Aug-13 12:24, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >>>> On 2013-08-02 13:02, Timothe Litt wrote: > >>>>> DEC shipped a product kit for DECnet that was simply a patch to > >>>>> enable it. It's kicking around the net. > >>>> > >>>> Are you talking about for VMS now, or something else...? > >>>> > >>>>> Phase III is useful because Phase II nodes (and TOPS-20 on the KS > >>>>> is > >>>>> one) can talk to it. DECnet provided compatibility, but only > >>>>> between adjacent Phases... > >>>> > >>>> I'm not aware of anything talking much of phase II. I'm pretty sure > >>>> T20 on a KS talks phase III, but I could be wrong. The > >>>> documentation is out there, so it should be easy to verify. > >>>> > >>>> I know that DECnet-8 was only phase II, but I think everything else > >>>> went beyond that. > >>>> > >>>>> So with a Phase III node, one can have T20 -> PIII -> PIV -> PV -> > >>>>> anything. > >>>> > >>>> Sortof. Phase II nodes do not even understand routing, and expect > >>>> all the nodes it want to talk to to be adjacent, not to mention the > >>>> very limited number of nodes supported by phase II, and other > >>>> oddities. (I think a topology like a star was supported, but I > >>>> can't remember the > >>>> details...) Also, it is still not supported to have a phase II node > >>>> to to a phase IV node, even through an intermediate phase III node, > >>>> if you want to talk about what DEC officially supported. > >>>> > >>>>> But even just Phase III gets around the 2-sync line limitation of > >>>>> the -20. > >>>> > >>>> Right. Phase III is when things became sortof sane, even if there > >>>> are still various limitations around. > >>>> > >>>>> Either VMS or RSX would work for Rob's purposes. (I have the same > >>>>> requirement, but haven't tracked down an old VMS kit. ) > >>>>> > >>>>> So would TOPS-10 V7.02 - which I should have, but it's not on a > >>>>> disk I've restored as yet. Too many projects, not enough hours. > >>>> > >>>> :-) > >>>> > >>>> Time. Always a problem. > >>>> > >>>> Johnny > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, > >>>>> on the matters discussed. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 02-Aug-13 06:28, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >>>>>> On 2013-08-02 06:14, Cory Smelosky wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Jarratt RMA wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would like to get hold of a SIMH image of a Phase III DECnet > >>>>>>>> node that wants to speak over a simulated KDP or DUP, both of > >>>>>>>> which are currently being added to SIMH. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe my best chance might be an RSX system, I have > >>>>>>>> generated an RSX system once before but struggled a bit, so if > >>>>>>>> anyone has something ready made it would be a big help. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rob > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you have the license kit for 3.x, I could get Phase III going > >>>>>>> on VMS pretty quickly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wouldn't phase III imply a system way before anything like a > >>>>>> license manager facility existed? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for RSX, I doubt people in general would have kept such > >>>>>> systems around just for the fun of it. Phase III is pretty old and long > ago. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Johnny > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Simh mailing list > >>>>>> Simh at trailing-edge.com > >>>>>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh I thought I would try to see if I can get Phase III onto a VAX SIMH image. I have NETRTG031 (like BE-X083A-BE from http://iamvirtual.ca/VAX11/VAX-11-software.html), but that appears to need VMS 3.4 and so I don't believe it is Phase III. Anyone have an actual DECnet kit for Phase III that will install on VMS 3.3? Whether it needs a key product to unlock like other pre V5 versions of DECnet I am not sure. My other option is going to have to be RSX, but I am pretty poor on RSX and could take a while to get something going there, if anyone has a ready-made RSX image that does Phase III that would be great. Thanks Rob From j_hoppe at t-online.de Wed Aug 14 02:38:43 2013 From: j_hoppe at t-online.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=F6rg_Hoppe?=) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:38:43 +0200 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH Message-ID: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Hi, I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet as usual. Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". But I found nothing similar on Linux. Did anybody researched in that direction? Joerg Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: > Hello! > Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the > PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the > latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also fully > updated and upgraded.) > > The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and > mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial port > function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to one > of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to the two > ports there. > > But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I > make use of that one? > > I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly > recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via > Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a > good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working > programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or > even an actual PDP-11 model..... > ----- > Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com > "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh at trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b4 at gewt.net Wed Aug 14 02:42:07 2013 From: b4 at gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 06:42:07 -0000 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH References: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Jörg Hoppe wrote: > Hi, > > I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this > BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: > > http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone > > One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet as > usual. > Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some > "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. > For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". > But I found nothing similar on Linux. > > Did anybody researched in that direction? > Recent (read: git) SIMH builds allow you to attach the console to a physical port. > Joerg > > > > Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: >> Hello! >> Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the >> PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the >> latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also fully >> updated and upgraded.) >> >> The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and >> mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial port >> function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to one >> of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to the two >> ports there. >> >> But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I >> make use of that one? >> >> I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly >> recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via >> Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a >> good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working >> programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or >> even an actual PDP-11 model..... >> ----- >> Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com >> "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." >> _______________________________________________ >> Simh mailing list >> Simh at trailing-edge.com >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> >> > -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From Mark at infocomm.com Wed Aug 14 13:28:33 2013 From: Mark at infocomm.com (Mark Pizzolato - Info Comm) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:28:33 -0700 Subject: [Simh] Physical serial ports and SIMH In-Reply-To: References: <520B25F3.60904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <0CC6789C1C831B4C8CCFF49D45D7010F9E8BC10490@REDROOF2.alohasunset.com> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Jörg Hoppe wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm in need of accessing physical tty's from SimH now too, see this > > BeagleBone installation with 4x RS232: > > > > http://retrocmp.com/projects/pdp-11-70-panel-on-blinkenbone > > > > One idea was to let SimH simulate additional serial ports over telnet > > as usual. > > Access to physical ttys should be made outside SimH with some > > "telnet-server-to-tty" bridge on the BeagleBone Linux itself. > > For MS-Windows such solutions exist, search for "IPCOMSERVER". > > But I found nothing similar on Linux. > > > > Did anybody researched in that direction? > > > > Recent (read: git) SIMH builds allow you to attach the console to a physical > port. Actually, to be more precise, the latest simh code allows direct connection of not only the console port, but any simulated serial device (DZ, VH, etc.) to physical serial ports. The latest code is available at https://github.com/simh/simh/archive/master.zip - Mark > > Am 26.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Gregg Levine: > >> Hello! > >> Right now I am tooling up to try out an idea or two concerning the > >> PDP-11 emulation. This is to be run on a Raspberry Pi running the > >> latest release of their Raspberry specific Debian release. (Also > >> fully updated and upgraded.) > >> > >> The device has the two USB connections ostensibly for a keyboard and > >> mouse, but one gentleman I know managed to make use of the serial > >> port function on one of them, and attached a USB to serial adapter to > >> one of the connections. So obviously I can connect two adapters to > >> the two ports there. > >> > >> But what about the serial port embedded on the GPIO connectors? Can I > >> make use of that one? > >> > >> I know normally that SIMH emulates a chosen computer and only fairly > >> recently with some of them do communicate with the outside world via > >> Ethernet, but for what I'm planning and working on, it seems to be a > >> good fit. Should it work I might be able to upscale the working > >> programs to Mr Wilson's product running on an X86 board instead, or > >> even an actual PDP-11 model..... > >> ----- > >> Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time > >> Wars, time and again." > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Simh mailing list > >> Simh at trailing-edge.com > >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > >> > >> > > > > -- > Cory Smelosky > http://gewt.net Personal stuff > http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects From bob at supnik.org Sat Aug 31 10:28:38 2013 From: bob at supnik.org (Bob Supnik) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Simh] Tiny bit of progress on RSTS/E RK07 issue Message-ID: <5221FD96.5070909@supnik.org> It looks like there are multiple problems. The first was that the drive type was being misidentified during system startup (in the routine RMLOOK in INIONE.MAC). This was due to a problem in update_hkds, which incorrectly cleared the error register (HKER[drv]) if the drive wasn't attached. In fact, all sorts of errors can be generated by a dismounted drive, including, most critically, drive type error. Without this, the drive is misidentified as an RK06. However, the INIT command still fails with "drive hung", and drive type mismatch errors are occurring. Now I need to trace the driver itself to see why it is trying commands to an identified RK07 with an RK06 drive type. Standalone INIT can initialize an RK07, but then MOUNT fails, so an interaction problem remains between the driver and the simulator. /Bob Supnik From bob at supnik.org Sat Aug 31 15:52:54 2013 From: bob at supnik.org (Bob Supnik) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:52:54 -0400 Subject: [Simh] More on the RK611 Message-ID: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> The RK611 is modeled as though it was a monolithic controller, a la the RP series, in which all the state in both the controller and the drives is interrelated and constantly interlinked. In fact, this is not true. The RK611 is a command-response model; status from the drive is only available in response to a command. Thus, when state in the controller is altered WITHOUT a command (eg, controller clear), the existence of state in the drives cannot be seen. What this means is that the update_hkcs and update_hkds routines are basically wrong. The former can only look at state within the controller. The latter can only look at state within the drive. Information about drive errors is dynamic: it has to be captured when generated, and after that, from the point of view of the controller, "it's gone." In particular, if DTER (drive type error) is generated by a command, it "persists" in the drive, but the actions that resulted in the controller (setting combined error) are ephemeral. A subsequent controller clear will clear combined error, even though the "drive type error" still exists in the drive. So when errors are set, all related consequences (setting ATA if appropriate, setting CERR if appropriate) must be done at the time, and not in the master update_hkcs routine. update_hkcs can only deal with controller state. This will result in a lot of small changes throughout the HK simulator. I've started in, and the result passes an initial smoke test with RT11; but then again, RT always worked. The real tests are RSTS, RSX, and VMS. /Bob From bqt at softjar.se Sat Aug 31 16:20:22 2013 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:20:22 +0200 Subject: [Simh] More on the RK611 In-Reply-To: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> References: <52224996.8060800@supnik.org> Message-ID: <52225006.2060203@softjar.se> On 2013-08-31 21:52, Bob Supnik wrote: > The RK611 is modeled as though it was a monolithic controller, a la the > RP series, in which all the state in both the controller and the drives > is interrelated and constantly interlinked. In fact, this is not true. > The RK611 is a command-response model; status from the drive is only > available in response to a command. Thus, when state in the controller > is altered WITHOUT a command (eg, controller clear), the existence of > state in the drives cannot be seen. > > What this means is that the update_hkcs and update_hkds routines are > basically wrong. The former can only look at state within the > controller. The latter can only look at state within the drive. > Information about drive errors is dynamic: it has to be captured when > generated, and after that, from the point of view of the controller, > "it's gone." In particular, if DTER (drive type error) is generated by a > command, it "persists" in the drive, but the actions that resulted in > the controller (setting combined error) are ephemeral. A subsequent > controller clear will clear combined error, even though the "drive type > error" still exists in the drive. > > So when errors are set, all related consequences (setting ATA if > appropriate, setting CERR if appropriate) must be done at the time, and > not in the master update_hkcs routine. update_hkcs can only deal with > controller state. > > This will result in a lot of small changes throughout the HK simulator. > I've started in, and the result passes an initial smoke test with RT11; > but then again, RT always worked. The real tests are RSTS, RSX, and VMS. Bob, I happen to have a simh instance with RSX running, that have RK07 drives defined. RSX have been happy with it so far, but is there something specific you would like me to test, just let me know. 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