RX50 on RQDX3 on 2.11BSD

[Steven M. Schultz]

> From: "Jason T. Miller" <jasomill at shaffstall.com>
> > 	write: Read-only file system
> > 	2+0 records in
> > 	2+0 records out
> That's what I get.

	Oh - ok.  I must have misread the initial posting that indicated the
	complete copy went thru

		  dd if=testrx50.img of=/dev/ra12a
		  800+0 records in
		  800+0 records out

	If the writing of the floppy bailed out after "2+0" then it is no
	wonder the compare later fails - only the first sector was written.

> > 	After doing the "disklabel -W ra9" the "dd" works fine and the floppy
> > 	compares identical to the input file.
>
> Still haven't tried it. Had to watch the Pacers game and get some needed
> sleep.

	Sleep I can understand :)

	I really think (and sure hope!) that write enabling the label area
	will fix the problem.

	Having to do a "disklabel -W" on a disk before doing 'raw' I/O was
	a change that came in when labels were implemented.  Before labels
	the tables were compiled into the driver and 'raw' I/O could scribble
	all over the disk and the system would still know about the 
	partitioning.   When I ported over disklabels from 4.3-Reno it seemed
	like a "Good Thing" to be paranoid about preserving the label sector ;)

> I've gone over ra.c several times -- that's a fun piece of code. I've
> written device drivers before, but really, was this a test of DEC
> software engineers by DEC hardware engineers?

	You know - I think it was a contest inside DEC to see who would go
	crazy first.   Reading the comments in the Ultrix drivers gave me
	the impression that even within DEC getting clear and correct
	documentation wasn't a given.   Then there are Chris Torek's comments
	in the 4.3-Reno and later MSCP drivers when he was in essence reverse
	engineering (or outright guessing) the MSCP commands, options, etc.

> Well, all my serial cables are three-wire (yes, I'm lazy, but I get
> 1.8K/sec via SLIP at 19200, so I'm not too concerned), but the 'numerous
> other goodies' I like.

	Hmmm, that's got to be a DHQ or similar.  I had real problems with a
	DHV-11 and character loss when going over 9600.   Also, if you want
	to use "Kermit" you have to have RTS/CTS because that's a fairly
	heavy weight protocol and the system can't keep up if the rate is
	too high.   With RTS/CTS in place I was able to use 38400 and not
	loose a single character.

> what I know and love. Give me 2.11BSD on a PDP over Solaris on an
> UltraSPARC any day (well, if anyone wants to _give me_ and UltraSPARC,

	Slowaris?  "Just say no" - I have to deal with that at work and
	it was light night and day going from SunOS 4.1.x to Slowaris 2.x
	on the same hardware.  You *need* an UltraSparc just to restore the
	system responsiveness.

> I'll do the responsible thing and reevaluate my claims -- and SunOS [4.1.x
> that is] is a decent OS, but anyway, I digress). The only thing I want is

	Bit long in the tooth and missing a lot of the improvements (and
	fixes) in the IP/TCP stack that have been made over time.  Still, it
	was a much nicer system.

> command history and filename completion in the Bourne shell (having grown
> used to Bash -- although it's a big memory pig and I admit I use it only
> for the previously mentioned features, though I like the PS variable magic
> characters, too -- I'm thinking about trying to hack the CH features of
> tcsh (never been a C shell fan) into sh, maybe we should start a 2BSD
> 'ports' collection? Any suggestions for a name of this shell? Any
> suggestions for freeing up my time to write it :)?

	Might I suggest "pig"? <grin!>

	I like and use 'csh' for everything except the basic scripts that go
	into the system.  Csh has filename completion that works fairly well,
	only thing it doesn't have is arrowkey driven command editing.

	But observe the bloat factor that comes with "niceties" such as
	command history and command editing:

	First there's the honest to Bourne shell:

	text    data    bss     dec     hex
	16576   2356    416     19348   4b94	/bin/sh

	Then take a look at /bin/csh where there's history and a nicer
	(to me scripting capability - doing arithmetic in csh is so much 
	easier than in sh):

	55744   7104    3682    66530   103e2   total text: 69120
		overlays: 7360,6016

	Overlaid!  Efficiently (the one overlay is called seldom) but overlaid
	none the less.

	And lastly 'tcsh' (and yes, there is a port of an older version of
	tcsh for 2.11):

	48960   14844   11986   75790   1280e   total text: 140864
		overlays: 15424,16000,14144,14016,16256,16064

	Zounds!  No hope of really being efficient - modules were packed where
	they would fit.   More than doubling the size of 'csh' seems to be
	a VERY high price to pay for using the arrow keys if you ask me.

	Oh, and 'tcsh' has another problem due to it's appetite for memory.
	If it runs out of D space (more likely since it's so much larger)
	you get logged out.   Doing filename completion in 'tcsh' and being
	in a directory with too many files is a sure way to be staring at
	the login prompt shortly there after ;)

	Steven Schultz
	sms at moe.2bsd.com

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA37372
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:01:53 +1000 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)