Re: Announcing TCP/IP for RSX-11M-PLUS
Argh. For anyone who have downloaded the release I cut yesterday - please get the new version (that goes for everyone else as well). I just discovered and fixed an obscure bug that can crash the system. It's something that happens under very specific circumstances, and is uncommon, but if you have lots of TCP connections coming and going, you'll hit it sooner or later. As usual, the distribution is available from: ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.dsk ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.tap ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx/tcpip/tcpip.dsk The documentation is also available through ftp on Mim, or also at http://mim.update.uu.se/tcpipdoc Johnny On 2015-11-07 17:02, Johnny Billquist wrote: Well, about two weeks since my last announcement, but I figured I should do another one. I've cut a new release of TCP/IP for RSX, and I encourage everyone to update to this latest release. A short list of changes since my last release: Documentation: . I've worked some on the documentation, and filled out some parts that were previously TBD. TCP: . Performance improvements. In general, I've improved file transfer performance by about 20% by tuning when TCP ACK messages as well as window updates are sent. On links where packets are dropped from time to time, the performance improvements can be significantly higher. . Bugfix. Retry counter were incorrectly reset under some circumstances. . Bugfix. TCP did not resend an ACK if the same data was received twice. . Bugfix. TCP sockets could erronously be left in a closed state with no task. However, looking at the socket, it looked like a task was associated. FTP: . Size calculation for stream type files in RSX mode was done incorrectly. Applications: . I've included a precompiled version of PCL.TSK As usual, the distribution is available from: ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.dsk ftp://mim.update.uu.se/bqtcp.tap ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx/tcpip/tcpip.dsk The documentation is also available through ftp on Mim, or also at http://mim.update.uu.se/tcpipdoc Johnny -- 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
Deciphering PDP-11/05 ZQKC (Instruction Exerciser) MAINDEC failures...
Hi all - As noted in a mail last week, I now have my PDP-11/05 running with working core (8KW). I had some time last night to try loading in some "real" software, and I started with the PDP-11 paper-tape BASIC, which I've successfully loaded into memory (in theory). At this point, it became clear that there's still an issue or two to iron out in the CPU; BASIC behaves extremely erratically, spewing random error messages, listing garbage, and corrupting itself and crashing pretty quickly. I'd run the memory exerciser MAINDECs previously (and I ran them again for good measure) and there are no obvious issues with the memory. The system exerciser diagnostic (ZQKB) passes, but the "11 family instruction exerciser" (ZQKC) fails after a minute or so at PC=016014. I have the listing for the diagnostic (though I'm not precisely sure whether it's exactly the same revision) from here: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/xxdp/diag_listings/MAINDEC-11-DZQKC-C-D_11_Family_Instruction_Exerciser_Nov73.pdf The doc is pretty grainy but the code at 016012 doesn't actually seem to match what I've got in memory (I disabled relocation in the test just to be sure things didn't get moved around) and there's no failure check at that particular point in memory either. I've tried the paper-tape images from Bitsavers as well as the ones on the XXDP RL02 images floating around out there and they all yield the same results; I suppose it's possible the CPU is failing in such a way as to make the test reporting incorrect but it seems more likely that (a) I have an outdated listing or (b) I'm misinterpreting the results somehow. Anyone have any experience with this particular diagnostic? Thanks, Josh
Re: WTB: Unix/Solaris Adobe FrameMaker 8
Kevin, On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:38:23 -0800 Al Kossow wrote: > On 11/7/15 4:45 PM, Kevin Parker wrote: > > > Try contacting Weird Stuff > > Most of the boxed software goes out on the floor or in the 'free' box outside > the store. > > Lyle might see it when it comes in, though generally they don't sort > used software or books, they just give it to retail. Solaris and related software is located in two places. In "As Is" to the far right as you enter that area and also in a "stash" located in the employee only area. If you are looking for a specific Solaris software package (including version, etc.) contact me off list. I go to WS about once a week and have access to all areas... Lyle > > > -- 73 AF6WS Bickley Consulting West Inc. http://bickleywest.com "Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
Re: Deciphering PDP-11/05 ZQKC (Instruction Exerciser) MAINDEC failures...
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > Hi all - > > As noted in a mail last week, I now have my PDP-11/05 running with working > core (8KW). I had some time last night to try loading in some "real" > software, and I started with the PDP-11 paper-tape BASIC, which I've > successfully loaded into memory (in theory). At this point, it became > clear that there's still an issue or two to iron out in the CPU; BASIC > behaves extremely erratically, spewing random error messages, listing > garbage, and corrupting itself and crashing pretty quickly. > > I'd run the memory exerciser MAINDECs previously (and I ran them again for > good measure) and there are no obvious issues with the memory. The system > exerciser diagnostic (ZQKB) passes, but the "11 family instruction > exerciser" (ZQKC) fails after a minute or so at PC=016014. > > I have the listing for the diagnostic (though I'm not precisely sure > whether it's exactly the same revision) from here: > > http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/xxdp/diag_listings/MAINDEC-11-DZQKC-C-D_11_Family_Instruction_Exerciser_Nov73.pdf > > The doc is pretty grainy but the code at 016012 doesn't actually seem to > match what I've got in memory (I disabled relocation in the test just to be > sure things didn't get moved around) and there's no failure check at that > particular point in memory either. > > I've tried the paper-tape images from Bitsavers as well as the ones on the > XXDP RL02 images floating around out there and they all yield the same > results; I suppose it's possible the CPU is failing in such a way as to > make the test reporting incorrect but it seems more likely that (a) I have > an outdated listing or (b) I'm misinterpreting the results somehow. > > Anyone have any experience with this particular diagnostic? > > Thanks, > Josh > FWIW - I find the MAINDEC programs frustrating to work with myself. I am also working on an 11/05, same basic stage in testing. I can load programs but I get failures eventually. The power tests accurately. I think in my case the G114 (sense / inhibit) is the issue but I am still working on it. I have a teletype set up to interact with the machine. -- Bill
RE: scrounging at recyclers
> Cindy Croxton wrote >This week I passed up a > large (at least 24" per side) HP server mainboard from the 70s Large HP boards from the 70's. This sounds just about perfect. This one would have fit the description of a HP 1000 mainboard pretty well. Medium sized ones too. Anything HP from the 70's or early 80's for that matter. Bring' em home! Marc
Re: PDP-11/45-55 CPU fan assemblies
On Nov 8, 2015 3:08 PM, "Henk Gooijen" wrote: > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: tony duell Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 2:57 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: RE: PDP-11/45-55 CPU fan assemblies >> >> IIRC that 21" mounting box (and I assume therefore the fan assemblies) >> was used on other machines like the 11/40 (some versions), the 11/70, >> etc. I am not suggesting you raid one of those for parts, but it might be >> something else to look at. > > > Yes, AFAIK, these were on all 21" boxen (BA11-F ?) > > >> I do have an 11/45 here with the original fan trays. The top one is easy >> to get at and measure, but IIRC the bottom one is a right pain, involving >> removing all the boards and dismantling the very fragile card guides. > > > True, unless you simply remove the entire fan box from the bottom of > the card cage. Have a clean floor, you will have to lay on it, as a car > mechanic :-) The box is (AFAIR) mounted on the card cage with 4 or > 6 (?) screws. > > - Henk Noel, What pdp 11 do you have now? Any progress on the 34? I have my 40 taken apart wirh only the empty card cage in the rack. If you're in the area you can swing by to take measurements. Bill Degnan twitter: billdeg vintagecomputer.net
RE: Testing H7864 (MicroVAX II) PSU With No Load
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Robert > Jarratt > Sent: 02 November 2015 23:18 > To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' > Subject: RE: Testing H7864 (MicroVAX II) PSU With No Load > > > -Original Message- > > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of > > Mattis Lind > > Sent: 02 November 2015 21:44 > > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: Testing H7864 (MicroVAX II) PSU With No Load > > > > 2015-11-02 22:05 GMT+01:00 Robert Jarratt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have just uploaded all the corrections. So the connector names on > > > the risers should now correspond. I have also corrected the area on > > > the primary control module around C403 and R407. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > Checked the new one. There are still something weird. The base of Q301 > > it is short circuited to the emitter (which if that is true would of > > cause your problem). But I think this is a drawing mistake. The base > > signals goes to the > > D405 diode which is connected to emitter Q405 and emitter Q406 which > > is then connected to emitter Q301... Please check this again. Maybe > > there are a short circuit component that makes you trace it wrong (if > > you do it by ohm-meter) > > > > /Mattis > > Thanks for spotting the drawing mistake. I have noted an apparent short > before, and I have some notes I made at the time, but that was so long ago > (almost a year!), and the notes don't seem to conclude whether I found the > short or not. I think I may have put it down to some of the transformers at > the > time, but I can't be sure. I will investigate this further as this is quite > promising, > but it looks like I will need to desolder some components... > > Regards > > Rob I have been doing some further checking of the schematic for the primary control section, because that is where the failure was, and I have found some significant errors. I have been over it as carefully as I can and hopefully it is now much more accurate. I have also made the connections to the primary side of the transformer correct, although as I remark on the schematic, I don't know how the transformer is wired in relation to the secondary outputs. Regarding the apparent short between the base and the emitter of Q301 (as measured, not as drawn - I have corrected the drawing), seems to be just the low value of R410, the resistance I measure b-e is 39R, which is exactly the marking on this resistor. So I think this would explain that. One other thing worth noting is that there is evidence of heat around D408, but it tests OK (in circuit). The updated Primary Control schematic is still here: http://1drv.ms/1KQkTBp Regards Rob
Is This Optimistic?
I was just browsing eBay for stuff near me when I came across this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apple-Color-Plotter-/291611803288 I dont know anything about Apple stuff at all, but surely £5,000 for this is a bit optimistic, isnt it? Regards Rob
Re: Is This Optimistic?
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Robert Jarratt wrote: > I was just browsing eBay for stuff near me when I came across this: > > > > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apple-Color-Plotter-/291611803288 > > > > I don’t know anything about Apple stuff at all, but surely £5,000 for this > is a bit optimistic, isn’t it? > > > > Regards > > > > Rob > > Drat! I just bought one for $10,000 last month. Could have saved enough for a $5000 Lisa mouse. -- Bill
Re: Is This Optimistic?
Well, a 'new, never used" one didn't sell for US $199so http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Functional-Vintage-Apple-410-Color-Plotter-Printer-Never-Used-1983-A9M0302-/181905173892 On Nov 8, 2015, at 5:51 PM, william degnan wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Robert Jarratt > wrote: > >> I was just browsing eBay for stuff near me when I came across this: >> >> >> >> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apple-Color-Plotter-/291611803288 >> >> >> >> I don’t know anything about Apple stuff at all, but surely £5,000 for this >> is a bit optimistic, isn’t it? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Rob >> >> > Drat! I just bought one for $10,000 last month. Could have saved enough > for a $5000 Lisa mouse. > > -- > Bill
Re: Is This Optimistic?
Drat! I just bought one for $10,000 last month. Could have saved enoughfor a $5000 Lisa mouse. -- Bill No u couldn't Bill as that price is in sterling not dollars :)
Front Panel - Update - 4-2-GO
Hi Guys 1 Real 8/e panel as absolute check leaves US on its way to me to-day 2. Out of twenty slots sixteen have gone. That leaves four. If they don't go before printing starts I'll have them screened to uncommitted /e (can become A or B) 3. For me its back to PDP11/40 thru 11/70 layouts. 4. Anybody need a one off. I'm trying to find an economic way to handle custom jobs 5. I'm also looking at an option to put manufacturing locations on as found on some systems (default is Maynard) Rod
