Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows...
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Guy Sotomayor wrote: I spent some time today and made a video of my MP 3000 system booting up to z/OS. The video is here: http://youtu.be/WnJmeQR0GQU. I thought the P/390 was the smallest S/390? Christian
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
the P/390 / R/390 systems are the smallest, but they don't support a lot of systems features, such as LPARS and the like that you need to be a full S/390 system. Also the card doesn't fully support z/OS. Redbook on page 17 says, "Don't call us because it looks like it runs z/OS". The MP3000 does support LPAR and Sysplex. http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246204.pdf On 8/6/2015 2:29 AM, Christian Corti wrote: On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Guy Sotomayor wrote: I spent some time today and made a video of my MP 3000 system booting up to z/OS. The video is here: http://youtu.be/WnJmeQR0GQU. I thought the P/390 was the smallest S/390? Christian
Re: Saved DEC kit
On 5 August 2015 at 20:25, Fred Cisin wrote: > "A pint is a pound, the world around." is no longer true. Never was. You always did use weird pints. They were *our* bloody silly measure, until we adopted something more sensible and easier to use... And *nobody* else uses pounds, Fahrenheit or MM-DD-YY. Not in about 2 generations, mostly. Often more. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
RE: Saved DEC kit
> > Never was. You always did use weird pints. They were *our* bloody > silly measure, until we adopted something more sensible and easier to > use... Actually, 10 is a lousy base for a measuring system. It has far too few factors. > And *nobody* else uses pounds, Fahrenheit or MM-DD-YY. Not in about 2 > generations, mostly. Often more. Please stop calling me 'nobody'. I have used pounds (for weight) in the last day and degrees Fahrenheit in the last week. I can remember the last time I used Rankine, though -tony
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Marc Verdiell wrote: Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows... One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it? g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Gene wrote... - One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it? To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? J
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) > > Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? Quite a lots of larger machines do. -- Will
Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
Hi all, I'm looking for a pertec controller suitable for a Qualstar 1052. ISA/SCSI/S-100 interfaces are fine. If anyone has one to sell, please let me know. Regards, -Tom
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 9:47 AM, William Donzelli wrote: > >> To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) >> >> Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? > > Quite a lots of larger machines do. A lot of machines have I/O processors of some sort, and often those boot first. You can go back to the CDC 6600 and the Electrologica EL-X8 in the early 1960s, perhaps further. Cray, ILLIAC IV, KL-10, ... lots of other examples. paul
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 06/08/15 14:38, Jay West wrote: Gene wrote... - One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it? To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? I think many of the larger VAXen had another processor in there to boot. The VAX 8500/8700/8000 used a PRO iirc. I think the VAX 9000 used a Microvax II CPU as the boot processor. I always assumed that DEC had a warehouse full of the whatever was used that they needed to shift :-) Antonio
RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Jay West wrote: Gene wrote... - One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it? To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) I'll rate that as "Midly Plausible". :) Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? I guess I just don't understand WHY. Wouldn't it be more economical (both from a manufacturing and sales standpoint) to design a mini or mainframe that could boot with nothing more than a dumb terminal as a system console? g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/15 6:16 AM, geneb wrote: One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it? Main processor microcode is in RAM. Putting microcode in ram and having a small computer load it was actually pretty common in the 70's and 80's in larger systems since then you didn't have to manage the hassle of patching microcode in ROM. Apple ended up putting a small TI microcontroller in the G5 because it also couldn't boot on its own. There was a bunch of volatile state you had to set up before it would fetch its first instruction.
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 08/06/2015 07:33 AM, Al Kossow wrote: Main processor microcode is in RAM. Putting microcode in ram and having a small computer load it was actually pretty common in the 70's and 80's in larger systems since then you didn't have to manage the hassle of patching microcode in ROM. Apple ended up putting a small TI microcontroller in the G5 because it also couldn't boot on its own. There was a bunch of volatile state you had to set up before it would fetch its first instruction. And really big iron almost always had some sort of maintenance control processor--some with their own mass storage. Have a separate, simpler processor handle the management of a larger one made a lot of sense, particularly when it came to diagnostic activity. Think Cray, CDC,... --Chuck
RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Al Kossow > Sent: 06 August 2015 15:34 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System > > > > On 8/6/15 6:16 AM, geneb wrote: > > One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? > > Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to > > boot it? > > > > > > Main processor microcode is in RAM. Putting microcode in ram and having a > small computer load it was actually pretty common in the 70's and 80's in > larger systems since then you didn't have to manage the hassle of patching > microcode in ROM. > On a "normal" 360/370/390/Z there are multiple independent I/O processors, called Channels. When you hit the IPL button it is one of the i/o processors that actually loads the OS. On an MP3000 the PC does some of the I/O work so it may be needed to IPL. Most IBM Mainframes from 370 onwards have control processors to manage the main CPU. Some even have smaller mainframes, so one has a 43xx box running VM/CMS as the control box... I believe that Gene Amdahl patented the use of a control processor and IBM paid him licence fees for every Mainframe with a control processor. Of course IBM owned the patents on Virtual Memory so Gene had to pay IBM to use those > Apple ended up putting a small TI microcontroller in the G5 because it also > couldn't boot on its own. There was a bunch of volatile state you had to set > up before it would fetch its first instruction. > Lots of newer servers have some sort of control processor. I am used to IBM "X" series which have a control CPU, and on payment of the appropriate licence fee, you can enable remote console support which provides a Java app which can be used to boot the server, power the main CPU up and down, and even map a remove floppy/CD/DVD so you can remotely install an OS. Before anyone asks it has a separate RJ45 jack. As long ago as 2000 I remember Compaq having a RIB board which did the same. I think it is now standard.. Dave G4UGM
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Lots of machines have had console processors that were required for the machine to run. The PDP-10 had a PDP-11 console processor. The Amdahl 470 had a DG Nova for a console processor, etc. etc. On 8/6/2015 8:16 AM, geneb wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Marc Verdiell wrote: > >> Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows... >> > One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? > Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to > boot it? > > g.
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
I wouldn't mind one as well -- I have a handful of Pertec drives that it would be nice to be able to talk to. One that handles multiple interface speeds would be a plus. I suppose I could always design one ;) On 8/6/2015 8:49 AM, Tom Moss wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a pertec controller suitable for a Qualstar 1052. > ISA/SCSI/S-100 interfaces are fine. If anyone has one to sell, please let > me know. > > Regards, > -Tom >
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
On 8/6/15 8:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: I wouldn't mind one as well -- I have a handful of Pertec drives that it would be nice to be able to talk to. One that handles multiple interface speeds would be a plus. I suppose I could always design one ;) Formatted Pertec is a fairly simple interface. Chuck has talked in the past of designing one, and some of the gotchas with the interface. Qualstar built two different styles of Pertec-SCSI adapter for the 1054. I'll see about putting board pics and rom dumps up, but as has been discussed, SCSI has problems when talking to tapes. I think Pertec - Ethernet is the way to go, and not mess around with SCSI or USB.
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
And so it remains today; most servers sold for data center applications include a little service processor ... I've found it's usually a little embedded ARM or PPC ... that you can use for remote console, remote power control, etc. Although these are not required to bootstrap the system, of course. If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 minutes to POST - no joke! Best, Sean On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 08/06/2015 07:33 AM, Al Kossow wrote: > > Main processor microcode is in RAM. Putting microcode in ram and having >> a small computer load it was actually pretty common in the 70's and 80's >> in larger systems since then you didn't have to manage the hassle of >> patching microcode in ROM. >> >> Apple ended up putting a small TI microcontroller in the G5 because it >> also couldn't boot on its own. There was a bunch of volatile state you >> had to set up before it would fetch its first instruction. >> > > And really big iron almost always had some sort of maintenance control > processor--some with their own mass storage. Have a separate, simpler > processor handle the management of a larger one made a lot of sense, > particularly when it came to diagnostic activity. > > Think Cray, CDC,... > > --Chuck > >
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
BTW I love your little terminal room there ... these things are on the fantasy list for me right next to the LISP Machine and TOAD-1, LOL. I wonder if it runs MTS? :O At least I've got Hercules :O Best, Sean On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: > And so it remains today; most servers sold for data center applications > include a little service processor ... I've found it's usually a little > embedded ARM or PPC ... that you can use for remote console, remote power > control, etc. Although these are not required to bootstrap the system, of > course. > > If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U machines > in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 minutes to POST - > no joke! > > Best, > > Sean > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > >> On 08/06/2015 07:33 AM, Al Kossow wrote: >> >> Main processor microcode is in RAM. Putting microcode in ram and having >>> a small computer load it was actually pretty common in the 70's and 80's >>> in larger systems since then you didn't have to manage the hassle of >>> patching microcode in ROM. >>> >>> Apple ended up putting a small TI microcontroller in the G5 because it >>> also couldn't boot on its own. There was a bunch of volatile state you >>> had to set up before it would fetch its first instruction. >>> >> >> And really big iron almost always had some sort of maintenance control >> processor--some with their own mass storage. Have a separate, simpler >> processor handle the management of a larger one made a lot of sense, >> particularly when it came to diagnostic activity. >> >> Think Cray, CDC,... >> >> --Chuck >> >> >
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
On 08/06/2015 08:35 AM, Al Kossow wrote: Formatted Pertec is a fairly simple interface. Chuck has talked in the past of designing one, and some of the gotchas with the interface. Qualstar built two different styles of Pertec-SCSI adapter for the 1054. I'll see about putting board pics and rom dumps up, but as has been discussed, SCSI has problems when talking to tapes. I think Pertec - Ethernet is the way to go, and not mess around with SCSI or USB. I've got the Verilog for an XC95128 CPLD checked out--and have tested the programming on one in a testbed lashup. The interface is basically "wishbone", via a single 8-bit port and 3 address lines. All of the detail, such as parity generation, error latching, etc. is handled by the CPLD. Done that way mostly to create a generic interface without a lot of SSI packages. I can talk to it directly from a PC parallel port. Rolling your own is easy. The interface is basically unidirectional open-collector. You could probably do it, if you weren't too fussy, with an 8255 or two. For me, that "last mile" is a bit of a problem. Is the goal simply to grab all the data from a tape and save it? Then an interface to, say, an SD Card is both cheap and affords plenty of space. Or is something wanted that gives immediate control over the tape drive--that is, something like SCSI? USB and Ethernet are both attractive, but you'll have to work out the host-side driver software. Does anyone still *write* tapes any more, save for the occasional copying task? Lots of questions with no clear answers. --Chuck
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 08/06/2015 08:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 minutes to POST - no joke! Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. The next prompt was to enter the date and time. People are too impatient today. --Chuck
RE: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
> As a total aside, on some HP boards there is a 16 pin DIL package with the > part number 1260-0339. > Any ideas what that chip is? What chip? Amazingly there is nothing inside that 16pin DIL package. No silicon chip, no thick-film resistor network, nothing. It is just a package with the pins. The purpose of it? It's a connector (!) to fit one of those IC test clips on to monitor various signals. -tony
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
On 08/06/2015 10:35 AM, Al Kossow wrote: On 8/6/15 8:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: I wouldn't mind one as well -- I have a handful of Pertec drives that it would be nice to be able to talk to. One that handles multiple interface speeds would be a plus. I suppose I could always design one ;) Formatted Pertec is a fairly simple interface. Chuck has talked in the past of designing one, and some of the gotchas with the interface. Yes, I hacked up one of my CNC control boards to make it into a read-only adapter for Pertec formatted drives. Works well, but is pretty slow. I've thought that using the PRU (attached 32-bit, 200 MHz micorcontroller) on the Beagle Bone would make a really great formatted Pertec interface. One problem is limited memory directly on the PRU, I haven't learned yet how to use the bulk system memory from the PRU. Jon
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
- Original Message - From: "Tom Moss" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:49 PM Subject: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a pertec controller suitable for a Qualstar 1052. > ISA/SCSI/S-100 interfaces are fine. If anyone has one to sell, please let > me know. > Regards, > -Tom Hi all I have always used TXI-16 and TX8 adapters. The TX8 could be used in IBM XT (8 bit connector), and in AT's. I believe they came from Overland. IIRC, there also used to be a similar one from Shafstall. The 1052 has a pertec interface. If I am not mistaken, the 1053 is the SCSI model. Regards Nico -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 2020 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Even modern SOCs and the processor in your PC/laptop have a micro-controller or PMIC that brings ups the rest of the chip. In the PC case (verses mainframe) it is on the same die and fabric as the CPU (and the scads of other CPUs, GPUs, Sensor Hubs, vision processors, etc). Lee C. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 08/06/2015 08:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: > > If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U >> machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 >> minutes to POST - no joke! >> > > Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" tape, > pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or editing > the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a cup of > coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. The next > prompt was to enter the date and time. > > People are too impatient today. > > --Chuck > > -- Lee Courtney +1-650-704-3934 cell
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
In many cases more than one! ;-) But more to the point, having a separate processor handing the booting chores frees the main CPU from those tasks. Initialization can be a pain just look at the x86 ISA and the hoops it makes the S/W (BIOS & OS) just to get to the point where the OS can really start it's own initialization! And that doesn't even cover the "magic" that goes on just so that the x86 CPU can fetch the first instruction. As folks have mentioned, a lot of larg(er) system have service processors to handle the booting chores. However, it's more than that. The service processor (as the name implies) is doing a whole lot more than just booting. It is also responsible for running low level diagnostics and capturing the results of hard crashes for later diagnosis. For example, the RS/6000 series, had a service processor. It was even responsible for loading the OS kernel image into RAM. This made the OS's like much easier. Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the most obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there is another S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to S/W. It is responsible for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk access and making them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 SSA drives). The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card reader/punch, direct attached 3270s, etc). TTFN - Guy On 8/6/15 10:07 AM, Lee Courtney wrote: Even modern SOCs and the processor in your PC/laptop have a micro-controller or PMIC that brings ups the rest of the chip. In the PC case (verses mainframe) it is on the same die and fabric as the CPU (and the scads of other CPUs, GPUs, Sensor Hubs, vision processors, etc). Lee C. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 08/06/2015 08:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 minutes to POST - no joke! Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. The next prompt was to enter the date and time. People are too impatient today. --Chuck
RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck > Guzis > Sent: 06 August 2015 17:24 > To: gene...@classiccmp.org; discuss...@classiccmp.org:On-Topic and Off- > Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System > > On 08/06/2015 08:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: > > > If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U > > machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 > > minutes to POST - no joke! > > Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" > tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or > editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a > cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. > The next prompt was to enter the date and time. > > People are too impatient today. > > --Chuck Actually I remember booting an IBM4381 from cold after we shut it down over Christmas. Just pressing the Power button powered it up eventually, but I am pretty sure it took nearly an hour to get to the IPL prompt. So it did disk drives, then tape drives, then other bits and bobs. But when it spun up the disks it brought them up one at a time so the startup surges didn't trip the main breaker. The same with the tape drives. Then it loaded the microcode into all the controllers. Then it booted the OS. As we were running VM this last bit took a few seconds (I think). I do know if VM crashed you screen logo frequently re-appeared before you had time to think. Dave Wade G4UGM
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/15 10:43 AM, Dave G4UGM wrote: -Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis Sent: 06 August 2015 17:24 To: gene...@classiccmp.org; discuss...@classiccmp.org:On-Topic and Off- Topic Posts Subject: Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System On 08/06/2015 08:04 AM, Sean Caron wrote: If you think the MP3000 is a slow booter, we just got some new 4U machines in where I work; 1.5TB RAM; those things take almost 20 minutes to POST - no joke! Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. The next prompt was to enter the date and time. People are too impatient today. --Chuck Actually I remember booting an IBM4381 from cold after we shut it down over Christmas. Just pressing the Power button powered it up eventually, but I am pretty sure it took nearly an hour to get to the IPL prompt. So it did disk drives, then tape drives, then other bits and bobs. But when it spun up the disks it brought them up one at a time so the startup surges didn't trip the main breaker. The same with the tape drives. Then it loaded the microcode into all the controllers. Then it booted the OS. As we were running VM this last bit took a few seconds (I think). I do know if VM crashed you screen logo frequently re-appeared before you had time to think. What freaked me out about the MP3000 is how long it takes from the time you hit the power switch until *anything* happens (like fans spinning). There's a lot being checked out during power up and that takes time. TTFN - Guy
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the > most > obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there is > another > S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to S/W. > It is responsible > for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk access > and making > them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 SSA > drives). > The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card > reader/punch, > direct attached 3270s, etc). So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's control processor, not a separate PC?
RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Dave G4UGM wrote: Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering or editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke (not me) or a cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape to disk. The next prompt was to enter the date and time. People are too impatient today. --Chuck Actually I remember booting an IBM4381 from cold after we shut it down over Christmas. Just pressing the Power button powered it up eventually, but I am pretty sure it took nearly an hour to get to the IPL prompt. So it did disk drives, then tape drives, then other bits and bobs. But when it spun up the disks it brought them up one at a time so the startup surges didn't trip the main breaker. The same with the tape drives. Then it loaded the microcode into all the controllers. Then it booted the OS. As we were running VM this last bit took a few seconds (I think). I do know if VM crashed you screen logo frequently re-appeared before you had time to think. Spinning off on this tangent, when I was learning how to fire up my Sun E10k I didn't realise it took so ruddy long for the SSP and the E10k to speak to each other. So I was constantly asking the SSP for the E10k's power status (to see if they were communicating) and being told the SSP "wasn't the master". I'd powered things up repeatedly and made all sorts of changes to the SSP config and just couldn't figure out what wasn't working. So one day I'm messing with it again and I'd walked over to the other side of the shop for a manual and gotten distracted and maybe ten minuted passed and all of a sudden all of the blowers dropped RPM and evened out. The SSP and E10k had finally finished their secret masonic handshake and the SSP did the equivalent of "Hey, dude, it's not 7000 degrees in here, you can chillax now". "People are too impatient today" -- Chuck G True enough. I just didn't know enough to know I should be patient. - JP
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/2015 1:32 AM, Marc Verdiell wrote: Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows... Now how about windows shutting down... Ben.
Re: Saved DEC kit
On 8/6/2015 4:30 AM, Liam Proven wrote: On 5 August 2015 at 20:25, Fred Cisin wrote: "A pint is a pound, the world around." is no longer true. Never was. You always did use weird pints. They were *our* bloody silly measure, until we adopted something more sensible and easier to use... And *nobody* else uses pounds, Fahrenheit or MM-DD-YY. Not in about 2 generations, mostly. Often more. I do!
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows...
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own? Why
would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to boot it?
"Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during booting?"
I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was bothered by
why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific places
on the drive.
"Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic
example.
The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
obviously ridiculously impossible task.
"You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
smaller external machine?
The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
have plenty of code to load the rest.
Why not just put the OS in ROM?
That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
features, such as security holes.
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/2015 7:47 AM, William Donzelli wrote: To report higher sales of OS2/Warp? ;) Not the only one though, ISTR the 11/780 used a 11/03 to boot? Quite a lots of larger machines do. That don't bother me as much as the hidden source software used with modern (mad laugh) OS code. Ben.
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/2015 8:10 AM, geneb wrote: I guess I just don't understand WHY. Wouldn't it be more economical (both from a manufacturing and sales standpoint) to design a mini or mainframe that could boot with nothing more than a dumb terminal as a system console? g. Whispers Time Sharing... Sell big fat systems.
OT: SNA was RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of JP Hindin > Sent: 06 August 2015 19:07 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System > > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Dave G4UGM wrote: > >> Booting an old CDC 6000-series machine meant mounting a "deadstart" > >> tape, pushing the button just below the screens on the DD60, entering > >> or editing the equipment status table, then going out for a smoke > >> (not me) or a cup of coffee, while the system copied the deadstart tape > to disk. > >> The next prompt was to enter the date and time. > >> > >> People are too impatient today. > >> > >> --Chuck > > > > Actually I remember booting an IBM4381 from cold after we shut it down > over Christmas. Just pressing the Power button powered it up eventually, > but I am pretty sure it took nearly an hour to get to the IPL prompt. So it did > disk drives, then tape drives, then other bits and bobs. But when it spun up > the disks it brought them up one at a time so the startup surges didn't trip > the main breaker. The same with the tape drives. Then it loaded the > microcode into all the controllers. Then it booted the OS. As we were running > VM this last bit took a few seconds (I think). I do know if VM crashed you > screen logo frequently re-appeared before you had time to think. > > Spinning off on this tangent, when I was learning how to fire up my Sun E10k > I didn't realise it took so ruddy long for the SSP and the E10k to speak to each > other. > So I was constantly asking the SSP for the E10k's power status (to see if they > were communicating) and being told the SSP "wasn't the master". > > I'd powered things up repeatedly and made all sorts of changes to the SSP > config and just couldn't figure out what wasn't working. So one day I'm > messing with it again and I'd walked over to the other side of the shop for a > manual and gotten distracted and maybe ten minuted passed and all of a > sudden all of the blowers dropped RPM and evened out. The SSP and E10k > had finally finished their secret masonic handshake and the SSP did the > equivalent of "Hey, dude, it's not 7000 degrees in here, you can chillax now". > > "People are too impatient today" -- Chuck G > > True enough. I just didn't know enough to know I should be patient. Excuse me if this isn't Exactly right, but I seem to recall some on in IBM saying that Thomas Watson Jr got a phone call one day. It went... TWJ: Thomas Watson here CLR: Is that Thomas Watson Jnr. TWJ: Yes CLR: and you are the head of IBM TWJ: Yes CLR and you first name is Thomas TWJ: yes CLR: and you are the head of IBM TWJ: yes CLE: and you are in your office TWJ: yes, but what do you want CLR: Just thought I would show what it is like trying set up and SNA session. Bye... > > - JP
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM
1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in
as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount:
Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there]
Storage Scan to +1
Sense switches to a blank character
[The above two were normally left that way]
Mode switch to CE
Computer Reset
Start
0[This clears storage]
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Display
Start
0[Display before altering]
Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b"
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Alter
0
A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12]
Computer Reset
Start
[Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load]
:)
On 8/6/2015 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>>> Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows...
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
>> One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own?
>> Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to
>> boot it?
>
> "Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during booting?"
> I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
> expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was bothered by
> why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific
> places on the drive.
>
> "Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
> multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
> task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
> I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
> but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
> and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
> It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic example.
>
> The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
> obviously ridiculously impossible task.
> "You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
>
> Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
> the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
> Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
> smaller external machine?
>
> The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
> to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
> and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
> have plenty of code to load the rest.
>
>
> Why not just put the OS in ROM?
> That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
> and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
> features, such as security holes.
>
>
>
>
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 8/6/15 11:05 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the most obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there is another S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to S/W. It is responsible for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk access and making them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 SSA drives). The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card reader/punch, direct attached 3270s, etc). So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's control processor, not a separate PC? In various other S/390 and z/Series machines, there is a laptop that is the "service element" with special S/W (now I think on Linux). On the MP3000, it is a single board computer that is on what looks like a big PCI card. By it's nature it is hooked into various parts of the MP3000 system through the various other things that sit on the PCI bus. Note that the PCI bus is shared between the SBC and the other parts of the MP3000. If you don't fire up the system element software the OS/2 system would appear as a somewhat "normal" PC with a bunch of special device drivers. There's a great diagram (too complicated to reproduce in ASCII art) that illustrates all of the major components in the MP3000. It's located in the IBM Redbook "Multiprise 3000 Technical Introduction". It's Figure 1 on page 8 of the redbook. This is a really great introduction on the MP3000. TTFN - Guy
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
PDP-8 with OS/8 on an RK05. From power up until booted and ready was
basically the time for the disk to spin up, which was about 10 seconds.
The actual booting of the system is about 0.3 seconds. Add 5 seconds if
you had to manually enter the bootstrap.
Johnny
On 2015-08-06 20:43, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM
1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in
as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount:
Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there]
Storage Scan to +1
Sense switches to a blank character
[The above two were normally left that way]
Mode switch to CE
Computer Reset
Start
0[This clears storage]
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Display
Start
0[Display before altering]
Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b"
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Alter
0
A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12]
Computer Reset
Start
[Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load]
:)
On 8/6/2015 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot Windows...
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own?
Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to
boot it?
"Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during booting?"
I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was bothered by
why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific
places on the drive.
"Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic example.
The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
obviously ridiculously impossible task.
"You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
smaller external machine?
The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
have plenty of code to load the rest.
Why not just put the OS in ROM?
That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
features, such as security holes.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Re: Wanted: Pertec Tape Controller
I would love to see that Verilog, as I have a Digilent Nexys2 (Xilinx Spartan 3E) and a Pertec drive I could play with. On 8/6/2015 11:19 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 08/06/2015 08:35 AM, Al Kossow wrote: > >> Formatted Pertec is a fairly simple interface. Chuck has talked in >> the past of designing one, and some of the gotchas with the >> interface. >> >> Qualstar built two different styles of Pertec-SCSI adapter for the >> 1054. I'll see about putting board pics and rom dumps up, but as has >> been discussed, SCSI has problems when talking to tapes. >> >> I think Pertec - Ethernet is the way to go, and not mess around with >> SCSI or USB. > > I've got the Verilog for an XC95128 CPLD checked out--and have tested > the programming on one in a testbed lashup. The interface is basically > "wishbone", via a single 8-bit port and 3 address lines. All of the > detail, such as parity generation, error latching, etc. is handled by > the CPLD. Done that way mostly to create a generic interface without a > lot of SSI packages. I can talk to it directly from a PC parallel port. > > Rolling your own is easy. The interface is basically unidirectional > open-collector. You could probably do it, if you weren't too fussy, > with an 8255 or two. > > For me, that "last mile" is a bit of a problem. > > Is the goal simply to grab all the data from a tape and save it? Then > an interface to, say, an SD Card is both cheap and affords plenty of > space. Or is something wanted that gives immediate control over the > tape drive--that is, something like SCSI? USB and Ethernet are both > attractive, but you'll have to work out the host-side driver software. > > Does anyone still *write* tapes any more, save for the occasional > copying task? > > Lots of questions with no clear answers. > > --Chuck > > >
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: > The PDP-10 had a PDP-11 console processor. The early PDP-10 models used the KA10 and KI10 CPUs, which did not have any separate processor for console/boot/diagnostics. It was common, however, to have a PDP-8 based communication subsystem, such as the 680 or 680I. The later models, using the KL10 and KS10 main CPUs, had console processors. The KL10 used a PDP-11/40 console processor, which had special access to the KL10 diagnostic data paths, and an RH11 Massbus adapter to a dual-port of one of the RP06 drives. In a DECsystem-10, it also had DECtape or floppy, and only handled boot, diagnostics, and the console terminal (usually an LA36 DECwriter). In a DECSYSTEM-20, it had floppy, and also handled additional terminals and unit-record equipment. KL10-based DECsystem-10 configurations and larger KL10-based DECsystem20 configurations tended to have additional PDP-11 communication processors; all but the smallest KL10 CPU configurations could support up to four DTE20 (DEC Ten to Eleven) Unibuses, one of which was for the PDP-11/40 console processor. The KS10 used an 8080-based console subsystem for the same purposes.
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Guy Sotomayor wrote: In many cases more than one! ;-) But more to the point, having a separate processor handing the booting chores frees the main CPU from those tasks. Initialization can be a pain just look at the x86 ISA and the hoops it makes the S/W (BIOS & OS) just to get to the point where the OS can really start it's own initialization! And that doesn't even cover the "magic" that goes on just so that the x86 CPU can fetch the first instruction. As folks have mentioned, a lot of larg(er) system have service processors to handle the booting chores. However, it's more than that. The service processor (as the name implies) is doing a whole lot more than just booting. It is also responsible for running low level diagnostics and capturing the results of hard crashes for later diagnosis. Thanks for the info Guy (and others!). The biggest machine I ever owed was a VAX 8250 that I got straight out of the machine room at Mannesmann-Tally in Kent, WA. Fun machine, but made my upstairs floor sag noticeably(sp). It had four RA-81s and a TU-81+. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote: Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM 1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount: Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there] Storage Scan to +1 Sense switches to a blank character [The above two were normally left that way] Mode switch to CE Computer Reset Start 0[This clears storage] Computer Reset Move Mode Switch to Display Start 0[Display before altering] Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b" Computer Reset Move Mode Switch to Alter 0 A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12] Computer Reset Start [Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load] :) Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO. Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a smaller external machine? Your expertise is the simplest and most reliable way to do it. But, if adequately appreciated, you are probably no longer the cheapest. So, they tried to replace you with a machine.
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM, tony duell wrote: > Amazingly there is nothing inside that 16pin DIL package. No silicon chip, no > thick-film resistor > network, nothing. It is just a package with the pins. Are you sure? They might have gotten a really good deal on house-marked Signetics 25120 chips, with not all of the address lines bonded out.
RE: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
> > Amazingly there is nothing inside that 16pin DIL package. No silicon chip, > > no thick-film resistor > > network, nothing. It is just a package with the pins. > > Are you sure? They might have gotten a really good deal on Well, I've not x-rayed one, but I could detect no conductivity or diode junctons between the pins. > house-marked Signetics 25120 chips, with not all of the address lines > bonded out. I've wondered why there wasn't a self-addressing serial version of the 25120, for First In Never Out stores. That would fit in a 16 pin package I think. -tony
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Eric Smith wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM, tony duell wrote: Amazingly there is nothing inside that 16pin DIL package. No silicon chip, no thick-film resistor network, nothing. It is just a package with the pins. Are you sure? They might have gotten a really good deal on house-marked Signetics 25120 chips, with not all of the address lines bonded out. It could also be a chip used to test an auto-insertion machine or wave solder machine. If memory serves, they'll use correctly pinned but "fake" parts to test those processes before moving to the more expensive real thing. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
> It could also be a chip used to test an auto-insertion machine or wave > solder machine. If memory serves, they'll use correctly pinned but "fake" > parts to test those processes before moving to the more expensive real > thing. Yes, there were a few companies that made dummy chips for exactly that reason. These days, the robots are much better, so I doubt the practice of using dummy chips still exists. -- Will
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
> Yes, there were a few companies that made dummy chips for exactly that > reason. These days, the robots are much better, so I doubt the > practice of using dummy chips still exists. And come to think of it, I bet those dummy chips were used for training people to hand stuff boards as well. -- Will
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Another reason for an attached service processor is to handle twiddling of things that the main machine shouldn't have access to. Reconfiguring memory, adjusting operating margins, monitoring water temperature, getting hold of detailed status information, etc. In at least one case, I'm aware of a machine where the MCU could reconfigure memory so that the CPU could continue running while the MCU ran diagnostics on the invisible (to the CPU) memory. Other than somewhat degraded memory size, the CPU was none the wiser. Some CDC MCUs employed a drum for its own program as well as for storing microcode--and had its own (separate) display console. --Chuck
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
On Aug 6, 2015 3:26 PM, "William Donzelli" wrote: > > Yes, there were a few companies that made dummy chips for exactly that > reason. These days, the robots are much better, so I doubt the > practice of using dummy chips still exists. > I've got tubes of them if anyone's interested. Not that anyone on this list would need practicing, but maybe your robots do. Kyle
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
I should think that a set of manually entered bootstrap instructions
(i.e., not on a diode ROM board) would take considerably longer than 5s. ;)
On 8/6/2015 1:43 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> PDP-8 with OS/8 on an RK05. From power up until booted and ready was
> basically the time for the disk to spin up, which was about 10 seconds.
> The actual booting of the system is about 0.3 seconds. Add 5 seconds if
> you had to manually enter the bootstrap.
>
> Johnny
>
> On 2015-08-06 20:43, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM
>> 1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in
>> as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount:
>>
>> Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there]
>> Storage Scan to +1
>> Sense switches to a blank character
>> [The above two were normally left that way]
>> Mode switch to CE
>> Computer Reset
>> Start
>> 0[This clears storage]
>> Computer Reset
>> Move Mode Switch to Display
>> Start
>> 0[Display before altering]
>> Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b"
>> Computer Reset
>> Move Mode Switch to Alter
>> 0
>> A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12]
>> Computer Reset
>> Start
>> [Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load]
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/2015 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot
> Windows...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own?
Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to
boot it?
>>>
>>> "Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during booting?"
>>> I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
>>> expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was bothered by
>>> why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific
>>> places on the drive.
>>>
>>> "Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
>>> multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
>>> task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
>>> I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
>>> but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
>>> and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
>>> It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic
>>> example.
>>>
>>> The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
>>> obviously ridiculously impossible task.
>>> "You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
>>>
>>> Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
>>> the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
>>> Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
>>> smaller external machine?
>>>
>>> The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
>>> to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
>>> and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
>>> have plenty of code to load the rest.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not just put the OS in ROM?
>>> That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
>>> and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
>>> features, such as security holes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Until that console processor fails with no backups. I seem to recall having 4 or 5 "backups" (aka operators). ;) On 8/6/2015 2:07 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote: >> Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM >> 1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in >> as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount: >> Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there] >> Storage Scan to +1 >> Sense switches to a blank character >> [The above two were normally left that way] >> Mode switch to CE >> Computer Reset >> Start >> 0[This clears storage] >> Computer Reset >> Move Mode Switch to Display >> Start >> 0[Display before altering] >> Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b" >> Computer Reset >> Move Mode Switch to Alter >> 0 >> A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12] >> Computer Reset >> Start >> [Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load] >> :) > > Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads > the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO. > Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a > smaller external machine? > > Your expertise is the simplest and most reliable way to do it. > But, if adequately appreciated, you are probably no longer the cheapest. > So, they tried to replace you with a machine. > > > > >
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 2015-08-06 23:00, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I should think that a set of manually entered bootstrap instructions
(i.e., not on a diode ROM board) would take considerably longer than 5s. ;)
You might think so. But when you see the bootstrap for the RK05 on a
PDP-8, you realize that it takes about 5s to toggle it in and run it.
It's only two 12-bit words that you need to write after all...
In short:
0030 LOAD ADDRESS
6743 DEP
5031 DEP
0030 LOAD ADDDRESS
START
When you've done it a few times, you get fairly proficient at it, and
it's not hard to remember... Even faster on a PDP-8/A which have a
numeric keypad frontpanel.
Johnny
On 8/6/2015 1:43 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
PDP-8 with OS/8 on an RK05. From power up until booted and ready was
basically the time for the disk to spin up, which was about 10 seconds.
The actual booting of the system is about 0.3 seconds. Add 5 seconds if
you had to manually enter the bootstrap.
Johnny
On 2015-08-06 20:43, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM
1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in
as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount:
Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already there]
Storage Scan to +1
Sense switches to a blank character
[The above two were normally left that way]
Mode switch to CE
Computer Reset
Start
0[This clears storage]
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Display
Start
0[Display before altering]
Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b"
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Alter
0
A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12]
Computer Reset
Start
[Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load]
:)
On 8/6/2015 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot
Windows...
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own?
Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer just to
boot it?
"Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during booting?"
I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was bothered by
why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific
places on the drive.
"Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic
example.
The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
obviously ridiculously impossible task.
"You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
smaller external machine?
The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
have plenty of code to load the rest.
Why not just put the OS in ROM?
That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
features, such as security holes.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
I see - I would have guessed quite a few more instructions than that,
based on my PDP-11 experience (my 8/L has only paper tape).
The PDP-12, which I have more experience at, takes about the same amount
of effort/time, but just the one I/O instruction in the switch register
(but then you have to enter the start address, and start the machine).
On 8/6/2015 4:03 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2015-08-06 23:00, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> I should think that a set of manually entered bootstrap instructions
>> (i.e., not on a diode ROM board) would take considerably longer than
>> 5s. ;)
>
> You might think so. But when you see the bootstrap for the RK05 on a
> PDP-8, you realize that it takes about 5s to toggle it in and run it.
>
> It's only two 12-bit words that you need to write after all...
>
> In short:
> 0030 LOAD ADDRESS
> 6743 DEP
> 5031 DEP
> 0030 LOAD ADDDRESS
> START
>
> When you've done it a few times, you get fairly proficient at it, and
> it's not hard to remember... Even faster on a PDP-8/A which have a
> numeric keypad frontpanel.
>
> Johnny
>
>>
>> On 8/6/2015 1:43 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> PDP-8 with OS/8 on an RK05. From power up until booted and ready was
>>> basically the time for the disk to spin up, which was about 10 seconds.
>>> The actual booting of the system is about 0.3 seconds. Add 5 seconds if
>>> you had to manually enter the bootstrap.
>>>
>>> Johnny
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-06 20:43, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Acch. All this modern/complicated stuff. Once you powered on an IBM
1410 (2 seconds), you could have it (141O O/S: 1410-PR-155) running in
as little as a minute, counting the tape drive mount:
Mount tape on unit 0 [30 seconds tops, as tape is probably already
there]
Storage Scan to +1
Sense switches to a blank character
[The above two were normally left that way]
Mode switch to CE
Computer Reset
Start
0[This clears storage]
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Display
Start
0[Display before altering]
Press margin release on console typewriter while it types out "b"
Computer Reset
Move Mode Switch to Alter
0
A(WM)L%B12$(WM)N [Read tape to end of core/record to loc 12]
Computer Reset
Start
[Wait about 10 seconds for 1410-PR-155 to load]
:)
On 8/6/2015 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>>> Wow. I'll never complain again that it takes too long to boot
>>> Windows...
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geneb wrote:
>> One thing I don't understand - why can't the machine boot on its own?
>> Why would IBM design a computer that required another computer
>> just to
>> boot it?
>
> "Why CAN'T the operating system have full functionality during
> booting?"
> I had an interesting conversation almost 30 years ago with a published
> expert on operating systemes and C programming, when he was
> bothered by
> why IO.SYS/IBMBIO.COM and DOS.SYS/IBMDOS.COM had to be in specific
> places on the drive.
>
> "Booting" is of course short for "bootstrapping", which is a
> multi-hundred year old term for a obviously ridiculously impossible
> task: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
> I had always thought that that derived from Baron Von Munchausen,
> but a little research turns up that the baron had lifted himself
> and his horse out of the swamp by his pigtail, not his bootstraps.
> It wasn't until early 1800s that "bootstrapping" became the iconic
> example.
>
> The reason that IPL is called "booting" is because it is such an
> obviously ridiculously impossible task.
> "You can't use the operating system to load the operating system."
>
> Obviously it is simplest if somebody (or machine) outside, loads
> the code into memory, and then triggers a GOTO.
> Which is cheaper, or more reliable, a "trained" operator, or a
> smaller external machine?
>
> The really clever way, though, was to toggle in, or have a little ROM,
> to load a TINY bit of stored code ("boot sector") into RAM, GOTO it,
> and it could contain enough code to load a bigger chunk, which could
> have plenty of code to load the rest.
>
>
> Why not just put the OS in ROM?
> That would require more ROM, would make bug-fixes more difficult,
> and would make it more difficult to modify the OS to add new
> features, such as security holes.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote: Until that console processor fails with no backups. I seem to recall having 4 or 5 "backups" (aka operators). ;) Your expertise is the simplest and most reliable way to do it.
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
Pin-out? Data sheet?
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
On Aug 6, 2015 6:00 PM, "Fred Cisin" wrote: > > Pin-out? > > Data sheet? > I'll dig them out when I'm home again in a couple of weeks. I saved them from the trash, figuring they could at least be used for art projects. I'll let them go for the cost of shipping. Kyle
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> I should think that a set of manually entered bootstrap instructions > (i.e., not on a diode ROM board) would take considerably longer than > 5s. ;) I feel fairly sure you overestimate either the length of the bootstrap or the per-word time required. I once used an HP machine with a front-panel-buttons bootstrap. It was only some four or five words long, and after entering it a few dozen times I feel reasonably sure I could enter it from muscle memory in well under a second per. (Weasel words are because this was in the late '70s and the memory is now rather fuzzy.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
RE: SNA was RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
From: Dave G4UGM Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:26 AM > Excuse me if this isn't Exactly right, but I seem to recall some on > in IBM saying that Thomas Watson Jr got a phone call one day. It > went... > TWJ: Thomas Watson here > CLR: Is that Thomas Watson Jnr. > TWJ: Yes > CLR: and you are the head of IBM > TWJ: Yes > CLR and you first name is Thomas > TWJ: yes > CLR: and you are the head of IBM > TWJ: yes > CLE: and you are in your office > TWJ: yes, but what do you want > CLR: Just thought I would show what it is like trying set up and SNA > session. Bye... Not to bring in nasty facts or anything, but Tom Jr. retired from IBM in 1971, after a heart attack. SNA was introduced in 1974. Rich Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Living Computer Museum 2245 1st Avenue S Seattle, WA 98134 mailto:ri...@livingcomputermuseum.org http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
RE: SNA was RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rich > Alderson > Sent: 07 August 2015 00:05 > To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' > > Subject: RE: SNA was RE: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System > > From: Dave G4UGM > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:26 AM > > > Excuse me if this isn't Exactly right, but I seem to recall some on in > > IBM saying that Thomas Watson Jr got a phone call one day. It went... > > > TWJ: Thomas Watson here > > CLR: Is that Thomas Watson Jnr. > > TWJ: Yes > > CLR: and you are the head of IBM > > TWJ: Yes > > CLR and you first name is Thomas > > TWJ: yes > > CLR: and you are the head of IBM > > TWJ: yes > > CLE: and you are in your office > > TWJ: yes, but what do you want > > CLR: Just thought I would show what it is like trying set up and SNA > > session. Bye... > > Not to bring in nasty facts or anything, but Tom Jr. retired from IBM in 1971, > after a heart attack. > > SNA was introduced in 1974. So who was in charge in 1974 > > Rich > > Rich Alderson > Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer > Living Computer Museum > 2245 1st Avenue S > Seattle, WA 98134 > > mailto:ri...@livingcomputermuseum.org > > http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
On 08/06/2015 02:25 PM, William Donzelli wrote: It could also be a chip used to test an auto-insertion machine or wave solder machine. If memory serves, they'll use correctly pinned but "fake" parts to test those processes before moving to the more expensive real thing. Yes, there were a few companies that made dummy chips for exactly that reason. These days, the robots are much better, so I doubt the practice of using dummy chips still exists. They definitely still exist. I doubt many people use them for P&P testing, except maybe the people who MAKE the P&P machines. But, larger outfits do extensive thermal profiles, cross-section microscopic examinations of solder joints and all sorts of exhaustive tests on soldering and other parts of the process. They use the dummy chips for testing the quality of these processes. They may run 25 boards with different thermal profiles to find out what gives the best soldering results. Jon
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 08/06/2015 04:01 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: Until that console processor fails with no backups. I seem to recall having 4 or 5 "backups" (aka operators). ;) Well, the idea is that the console or diagnostic processor is WAY simpler than the mainframe CPU. So, if the console computer dies, you can troubleshoot it and be sure it is running in just a few minutes, and then get on to the real problem. The VAX 11/780 had an LSI-11 with a floppy controller and an interface board to the VAX, so I think it was down to 3 boards or something. Jon
OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On the subject of slow booting, perhaps someone can help me with a very annoying case of the slowboots. I've got a dual slot-1 P3 system here--a Supermicro P6DGE, which uses a 440GX chipset and 2GB of registered SDRAM with two 900MHz CPUs. When it finally get around to s booting, it's a great workhorse, with 2, count'em 2 well-behaved ISA slots. It's frisky enough to run Windows 7 and proudly proclaims that it was made in the USA. The problem is, that even with the "Fast boot" BIOS setting, it takes well over a minute to get to the point where it tries to boot. Does anyone have a clue on why it's so slow? Even getting the POST down to 15-20 seconds would be wonderful. --Chuck
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Four, I expect: CPU, Memory, VAX Interface, Floppy Controller. I have one in pieces floating around here somewhere. One of those puppies (probably the one I have) held our VAX hostage for DAYS while the service folks from the OEM (Intergraph) tried to figure out what was wrong - they kept blaming the console processor which was not the problem. Turned out to be a recently added power supply - which I had pointed out to them was something that changed, and something we could do without as a test. Sigh. On 8/6/2015 7:13 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 08/06/2015 04:01 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: >> Until that console processor fails with no backups. I seem to recall >> having 4 or 5 "backups" (aka operators). ;) >> >> > Well, the idea is that the console or diagnostic processor is WAY > simpler than the mainframe CPU. So, if the console computer dies, you > can troubleshoot it and be sure it is running in just a few minutes, and > then get on to the real problem. > > The VAX 11/780 had an LSI-11 with a floppy controller and an interface > board to the VAX, so I think it was down to 3 boards or something. > > Jon >
Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: The problem is, that even with the "Fast boot" BIOS setting, it takes well over a minute to get to the point where it tries to boot. Does anyone have a clue on why it's so slow? Even getting the POST down to 15-20 seconds would be wonderful. Slow boot can be really annoying. Especially when there aren't adequate indications that it IS making progress towards it. I was very pleased in booting MS-DOS when BIOS's starting counting off the memory being tested. (Remember when that change was?) It's usually JUST an annoyance. But what about the cumulative totals? If you were to take the boot time, of all the copies, and all the users, and add it up, then divide by median lifetime, . . . How many LIVES have been wasted by it? That doesn't make it a mass-murderer, does it?
Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Aside from memory tests, in my experience, sometimes slowness can be caused by a disk controller ROM (often on a SCSI controller) that gets invoked during the POST that slows things down - particularly if it also enumerates what is on the SCSI bus. On 8/6/2015 7:35 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On the subject of slow booting, perhaps someone can help me with a very > annoying case of the slowboots. > > I've got a dual slot-1 P3 system here--a Supermicro P6DGE, which uses a > 440GX chipset and 2GB of registered SDRAM with two 900MHz CPUs. When it > finally get around to s booting, it's a great workhorse, with 2, > count'em 2 well-behaved ISA slots. It's frisky enough to run Windows 7 > and proudly proclaims that it was made in the USA. > > The problem is, that even with the "Fast boot" BIOS setting, it takes > well over a minute to get to the point where it tries to boot. > > Does anyone have a clue on why it's so slow? Even getting the POST down > to 15-20 seconds would be wonderful. > > --Chuck > >
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
If you want to see how it works on bigger iron, here's a rare beast indeed: my Application Starterpak 3000 - internal IBM codename 'Warthog'. A real S/390 in a half-height chassis. First video is a power-up; let it play to the end and it segues into the next video, IPLing the beast! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMgyrZm87A Cheers Mike On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > > > On 8/6/15 11:05 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: >>> >>> Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the >>> most >>> obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there >>> is >>> another >>> S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to >>> S/W. >>> It is responsible >>> for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk >>> access >>> and making >>> them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 >>> SSA >>> drives). >>> The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card >>> reader/punch, >>> direct attached 3270s, etc). >> >> So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's >> control processor, not a separate PC? > > In various other S/390 and z/Series machines, there is a laptop that is the > "service element" with > special S/W (now I think on Linux). On the MP3000, it is a single board > computer that is on what > looks like a big PCI card. By it's nature it is hooked into various parts > of the MP3000 system through > the various other things that sit on the PCI bus. Note that the PCI bus is > shared between the SBC > and the other parts of the MP3000. > > If you don't fire up the system element software the OS/2 system would > appear as a somewhat > "normal" PC with a bunch of special device drivers. > > There's a great diagram (too complicated to reproduce in ASCII art) that > illustrates all of the major > components in the MP3000. It's located in the IBM Redbook "Multiprise 3000 > Technical Introduction". > It's Figure 1 on page 8 of the redbook. This is a really great introduction > on the MP3000. > > TTFN - Guy > -- http://www.corestore.org 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame. For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 08/06/2015 06:24 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: Aside from memory tests, in my experience, sometimes slowness can be caused by a disk controller ROM (often on a SCSI controller) that gets invoked during the POST that slows things down - particularly if it also enumerates what is on the SCSI bus. Nope, same-oh, same-oh right down to a configuration with nothing more than a single IDE drive and a video card.The diagnosis of 2GB memory is immediate and then the thing just sits for a minute or more before finally showing the configuration (attached drives, etc.) --Chuck
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Is it really "bigger" than the MP3000 or is just a repackaged MP2000 where there is no emulated I/O? My MP3000 in addition to 2 72GB Raid-5 arrays has 2 ethernet interfaces, 2 parallel channel attach points and 2 ESCON channel attach points. I'm also jealous that you have a 3279 terminal. I've been looking for 3278s and/or 3279s and haven't found any (except for the ridiculously priced 3278 on ebay right now). TTFN - Guy On 8/6/15 7:11 PM, Mike Ross wrote: If you want to see how it works on bigger iron, here's a rare beast indeed: my Application Starterpak 3000 - internal IBM codename 'Warthog'. A real S/390 in a half-height chassis. First video is a power-up; let it play to the end and it segues into the next video, IPLing the beast! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMgyrZm87A Cheers Mike On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: On 8/6/15 11:05 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the most obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there is another S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to S/W. It is responsible for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk access and making them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 SSA drives). The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card reader/punch, direct attached 3270s, etc). So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's control processor, not a separate PC? In various other S/390 and z/Series machines, there is a laptop that is the "service element" with special S/W (now I think on Linux). On the MP3000, it is a single board computer that is on what looks like a big PCI card. By it's nature it is hooked into various parts of the MP3000 system through the various other things that sit on the PCI bus. Note that the PCI bus is shared between the SBC and the other parts of the MP3000. If you don't fire up the system element software the OS/2 system would appear as a somewhat "normal" PC with a bunch of special device drivers. There's a great diagram (too complicated to reproduce in ASCII art) that illustrates all of the major components in the MP3000. It's located in the IBM Redbook "Multiprise 3000 Technical Introduction". It's Figure 1 on page 8 of the redbook. This is a really great introduction on the MP3000. TTFN - Guy
RE: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
You might check whether the BIOS config is set to autodetect drives at startup; in many BIOSes each IDE channel can be set to Auto/None or a specific config. Try setting all installed drives to a specific configuration, and any unused channels to None. Autodetection can sometimes take a long time. I also find that detection of cd/dvd drives is sometimes very slow... (apologies for top-posting, responding on my phone which has a primitive editor...) - Josh -Original Message- From: "Chuck Guzis" Sent: 8/6/2015 11:02 PM To: "gene...@classiccmp.org" ; "discuss...@classiccmp.org:On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Subject: Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System On 08/06/2015 06:24 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: > Aside from memory tests, in my experience, sometimes slowness can be > caused by a disk controller ROM (often on a SCSI controller) that > gets invoked during the POST that slows things down - particularly if > it also enumerates what is on the SCSI bus. Nope, same-oh, same-oh right down to a configuration with nothing more than a single IDE drive and a video card.The diagnosis of 2GB memory is immediate and then the thing just sits for a minute or more before finally showing the configuration (attached drives, etc.) --Chuck
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Oh it's much bigger. Somewhere I have a photo of them side by side... ah yes: http://www.corestore.org/ASP3000-IS390.jpg That's the Warthog next to an Integrated Server 3006 - which uses the same chassis as the MP3K. So it's both - it's a repackaged MP2000, *and* it's much bigger than an MP3K! Also much much heavier; built out of Real Mainframe gauge steel :-) I'm jealous that you have an operational MP3K!!! I've sweated blood over mine for weeks, to no avail. If it works, it works for ever. If it doesn't work, and it isn't a simple hardware fix, it needs an IBM CE with a bunch of super secret software tools to tickle it into life, it seems... Mike On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > Is it really "bigger" than the MP3000 or is just a repackaged MP2000 where > there > is no emulated I/O? > > My MP3000 in addition to 2 72GB Raid-5 arrays has 2 ethernet interfaces, 2 > parallel channel > attach points and 2 ESCON channel attach points. > > I'm also jealous that you have a 3279 terminal. I've been looking for 3278s > and/or 3279s > and haven't found any (except for the ridiculously priced 3278 on ebay right > now). > > TTFN - Guy > > > On 8/6/15 7:11 PM, Mike Ross wrote: >> >> If you want to see how it works on bigger iron, here's a rare beast >> indeed: my Application Starterpak 3000 - internal IBM codename >> 'Warthog'. A real S/390 in a half-height chassis. First video is a >> power-up; let it play to the end and it segues into the next video, >> IPLing the beast! >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMgyrZm87A >> >> Cheers >> >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/6/15 11:05 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > > Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are > the > most > obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there > is > another > S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to > S/W. > It is responsible > for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk > access > and making > them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 > SSA > drives). > The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card > reader/punch, > direct attached 3270s, etc). So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's control processor, not a separate PC? >>> >>> In various other S/390 and z/Series machines, there is a laptop that is >>> the >>> "service element" with >>> special S/W (now I think on Linux). On the MP3000, it is a single board >>> computer that is on what >>> looks like a big PCI card. By it's nature it is hooked into various >>> parts >>> of the MP3000 system through >>> the various other things that sit on the PCI bus. Note that the PCI bus >>> is >>> shared between the SBC >>> and the other parts of the MP3000. >>> >>> If you don't fire up the system element software the OS/2 system would >>> appear as a somewhat >>> "normal" PC with a bunch of special device drivers. >>> >>> There's a great diagram (too complicated to reproduce in ASCII art) that >>> illustrates all of the major >>> components in the MP3000. It's located in the IBM Redbook "Multiprise >>> 3000 >>> Technical Introduction". >>> It's Figure 1 on page 8 of the redbook. This is a really great >>> introduction >>> on the MP3000. >>> >>> TTFN - Guy >>> >> >> > -- http://www.corestore.org 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame. For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
NOS!!! Compugraphic, (2) Computer Automation Naked Mini, (2)Motorola M-4408
All unused! Please contact me off list if interested. Located in zip 61853
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
Cool! I've toyed with the idea of getting a larger mainframe (zSeries) but the aspect of trying to get and configure storage for it is the main stumbling block. I didn't realize how lucky I was with mine until I started hearing about the horror stories from others. I think what helped was that mine wasn't "molested" before I received it. In addition to arriving in the original IBM shipping crate (really? who keeps that?) it also had all of the "extras" in terms of cables, terminators, etc still unopened. The only thing that I'm missing is some of the software and diagnostics that were supplied on either tape or CD. I *really* have to figure out a backup solution for this so that I don't get stuck but that supposes that I have a way to re-create the OS/2 image that's already there if I do have to do a full from scratch restore. TTFN - Guy On 8/6/15 8:46 PM, Mike Ross wrote: Oh it's much bigger. Somewhere I have a photo of them side by side... ah yes: http://www.corestore.org/ASP3000-IS390.jpg That's the Warthog next to an Integrated Server 3006 - which uses the same chassis as the MP3K. So it's both - it's a repackaged MP2000, *and* it's much bigger than an MP3K! Also much much heavier; built out of Real Mainframe gauge steel :-) I'm jealous that you have an operational MP3K!!! I've sweated blood over mine for weeks, to no avail. If it works, it works for ever. If it doesn't work, and it isn't a simple hardware fix, it needs an IBM CE with a bunch of super secret software tools to tickle it into life, it seems... Mike On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: Is it really "bigger" than the MP3000 or is just a repackaged MP2000 where there is no emulated I/O? My MP3000 in addition to 2 72GB Raid-5 arrays has 2 ethernet interfaces, 2 parallel channel attach points and 2 ESCON channel attach points. I'm also jealous that you have a 3279 terminal. I've been looking for 3278s and/or 3279s and haven't found any (except for the ridiculously priced 3278 on ebay right now). TTFN - Guy On 8/6/15 7:11 PM, Mike Ross wrote: If you want to see how it works on bigger iron, here's a rare beast indeed: my Application Starterpak 3000 - internal IBM codename 'Warthog'. A real S/390 in a half-height chassis. First video is a power-up; let it play to the end and it segues into the next video, IPLing the beast! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMgyrZm87A Cheers Mike On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: On 8/6/15 11:05 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: Back to the MP 3000. There are a number of CPUs in the box. Two are the most obvious: the SBC running OS/2 and the actual S/390 CPU. However, there is another S/390 CPU in the box as well. It is not visible (at least directly) to S/W. It is responsible for providing the high performance I/O capabilities (like native disk access and making them appear as conventional channel attached devices instead of RAID-5 SSA drives). The OS/2 SBC is there to emulate some of the slower devices (card reader/punch, direct attached 3270s, etc). So the OS/2 computer is actually a component of the mainframe's control processor, not a separate PC? In various other S/390 and z/Series machines, there is a laptop that is the "service element" with special S/W (now I think on Linux). On the MP3000, it is a single board computer that is on what looks like a big PCI card. By it's nature it is hooked into various parts of the MP3000 system through the various other things that sit on the PCI bus. Note that the PCI bus is shared between the SBC and the other parts of the MP3000. If you don't fire up the system element software the OS/2 system would appear as a somewhat "normal" PC with a bunch of special device drivers. There's a great diagram (too complicated to reproduce in ASCII art) that illustrates all of the major components in the MP3000. It's located in the IBM Redbook "Multiprise 3000 Technical Introduction". It's Figure 1 on page 8 of the redbook. This is a really great introduction on the MP3000. TTFN - Guy
Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On 08/06/2015 08:20 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: You might check whether the BIOS config is set to autodetect drives at startup; in many BIOSes each IDE channel can be set to Auto/None or a specific config. Try setting all installed drives to a specific configuration, and any unused channels to None. Autodetection can sometimes take a long time. I also find that detection of cd/dvd drives is sometimes very slow... (apologies for top-posting, responding on my phone which has a primitive editor...) I already do that. Note that the "dead time" occurs before getting the message "Inspecting IDE configuration", so I don't think it's that. Network boot is turned off, BTW. --Chuck
Fwd: ROLM CBX 8000 System Service Manual Vol. 2 Scans Released!
Cross-post from the Collectors Network list that may be of interest to folks here. If anyone out there happens to have an old copy of Vol. 1 of the CBX 8000 System Service Manual, or might know an old ROLMan (or ROLwoMan) who might have same, I surely would appreciate the opportunity to digitize it! These are eventually going to be submitted to the Telephone Collectors International Library but it's certainly okay to take a copy for Bitsavers as well, if so desired. Best, Sean -- Forwarded message -- From: Sean Caron Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:17 PM Subject: ROLM CBX 8000 System Service Manual Vol. 2 Scans Released! To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches , Sean Caron < sca...@umich.edu> Hi all, I finally got around to digitizing the copy of the second volume of the ROLM CBX 8000 System Service Manual that I had received courtesy of Dennis Hock. I've got the scans sitting on my personal site for now until I figure out the process for getting them submitted to the TCI Library. Everyone is welcome to peruse: http://wildflower.diablonet.net/~scaron/pdf/ROLM/ Please note that Comcast has been kind of dodgy at my place recently, so the quality of the connection may fade in and out a little bit. As this document is very large (perhaps around 1,000 pages) the scans were done mostly by machine. I dumped a chapter at a time into a Konica Bizhub 300 series MFP and scanned in double-sided mode at 300 DPI. I've cursorily reviewed them and it looks like the Bizhub did a pretty nice job of scanning ... there's a little bit of white space due to not all pages being double sided, and due to the fold-outs, but all the information is there! Thanks so much, Dennis, for loaning the manual to me and I'm sorry it took me so long to get to it. I'll try to have the original back in the mail heading your way within the week. Let's hope this will stir someone to dig up an old Vol. 1 on which I can do the same :O Cheers! Sean
Re: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
It doesn't even shunt across; it's just 16 pins in a DIL package "floating"? Strange. If it were a manufacturing test, one wouldn't expect it would show up in production machines? Best, Sean On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, geneb wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Eric Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM, tony duell >> wrote: >> >>> Amazingly there is nothing inside that 16pin DIL package. No silicon >>> chip, no thick-film resistor >>> network, nothing. It is just a package with the pins. >>> >> >> Are you sure? They might have gotten a really good deal on >> house-marked Signetics 25120 chips, with not all of the address lines >> bonded out. >> > > It could also be a chip used to test an auto-insertion machine or wave > solder machine. If memory serves, they'll use correctly pinned but "fake" > parts to test those processes before moving to the more expensive real > thing. > > g. > > -- > Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 > http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. > http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. > Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. > > ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment > A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. > http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! >
Re: OT: Slow booting, was re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
For sure. When I quoted the 20 minute post time on new 4U machines earlier, I didn't include the time the four HBAs on those particular machines spent enumerating each one of the 360 drives connected ... only to poop out at the end of the process anyway because it runs out of memory in a fixed data structure and wants you to whack the space bar a bunch of times to acknowledge the warning. Then the hardware RAID. And the PXE BIOS on the NICs. And the configuration prompt for the management controller. Now they want to bake UEFI into these things and the silly "lifecycle controller" wants to drop in, take inventory and disconnect and what good that does me, I will never know ... Mostly it's an issue at deployment time; you are usually doing a few quick reboots in succession when loading the system and, while I admit, patience is definitely a virtue, watching these things POST can get frustrating when you're at work and other stuff is going on in the mean-time. Once they're up, they don't tend to get rebooted much. Best, Sean On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: > Aside from memory tests, in my experience, sometimes slowness can be > caused by a disk controller ROM (often on a SCSI controller) that gets > invoked during the POST that slows things down - particularly if it also > enumerates what is on the SCSI bus. > > On 8/6/2015 7:35 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On the subject of slow booting, perhaps someone can help me with a very > > annoying case of the slowboots. > > > > I've got a dual slot-1 P3 system here--a Supermicro P6DGE, which uses a > > 440GX chipset and 2GB of registered SDRAM with two 900MHz CPUs. When it > > finally get around to s booting, it's a great workhorse, with 2, > > count'em 2 well-behaved ISA slots. It's frisky enough to run Windows 7 > > and proudly proclaims that it was made in the USA. > > > > The problem is, that even with the "Fast boot" BIOS setting, it takes > > well over a minute to get to the point where it tries to boot. > > > > Does anyone have a clue on why it's so slow? Even getting the POST down > > to 15-20 seconds would be wonderful. > > > > --Chuck > > > > >
RE: Unidentified chip -- Spoiler for HP 1260-0339
> > And come to think of it, I bet those dummy chips were used for > training people to hand stuff boards as well. The Amstrad PCW8256 (word processor) came with 256K of RAM but could be expanded to 512K essentially by adding another 8 41256 DRAM chips. Some companies in the UK sold the 9-chip kits used to expand PCs (with parity memory) for this, telling you to use the extra chip to practice with. However the HP package I mentioned is the only time I've seen one of these dummy chips used on a production board. -tony
Re: Booting an IBM MP 3000 S/390 System
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:11:01PM +1200, Mike Ross wrote: > If you want to see how it works on bigger iron, here's a rare beast > indeed: my Application Starterpak 3000 - internal IBM codename > 'Warthog'. A real S/390 in a half-height chassis. First video is a > power-up; let it play to the end and it segues into the next video, > IPLing the beast! > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMgyrZm87A Youtubes related video suggestion mirrors my sentiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iuo31_GsuM /P
