[TUHS] 2.10

Cory Smelosky b4 at gewt.net
Fri Nov 21 14:55:58 AEST 2014

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Clem Cole wrote:

> I don't think the BSD networking code in 2.10 worked on systems with only
> 256K bytes of memory.  The kernel is too big even without networking and a
> lot of work was done to push things out of the kernel. [The 17th bit (split
> I/D) really only mattered for user space, the kernel mapped things around -
> but with only 18 bits of address map there is not much space]. Adding
> networking and in particular the space for the mbuf's becomes a real issue.

It's unsupported; see my email where I pasted the "HCL" from 2.10's 
GENERIC config.

> Here are some thoughts..
> 1.) Easiest/Cheapest solution might be to front end the system with an RPi,
> Intel Edison or the like and run the IP stack on it and then use one or
> more serial ports from the micro to 11.

Well, 2.10 has SLIP, but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple 
userland tool to talk to a frontend!

> 2.) See if you can dig up an old copy of the 3 COM's first product - UNET -
> which was the original TCP/IP for V7.  It's old and not very sexy, but the
> kernel requirements are minimal and if all you want it telnet & FTP that
> will work.

That I am pretty sure I DO NOT have source for.

> 3.) If you have real hardware, see if you can find an old Able "Enable"
> board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory in an 40 class processor
> (you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22 bits of address like the 45
> class processors).   I had 2.X working on that years ago (and wrote a
> USENIX paper on it).  The Enable board support was in the BSD 2*
> distributions (I put there) but I doubt its been tried in many years.

That sounds like a neat board.  Betting it's a bit hard to find, though. 

> 4.) Ultrix-11 should boot on a 40 class system, but I do not remember if on
> the 18 bit machines you could configure networking.   Armando might
> remember if Fred ever made that work.  If any one could have or would have,
> it would have been Fred.  As I said, there just is not a lot of space and
> frankly there is not going to be a lot of space left for user programs.

I'd check but I'm pretty sure I don't have Ultrix-11 sources. :(

> Clem
> PS I remember running V6 on 11/34 with 48K bytes of memory for a few months
> as our memory for that system was back ordered.  It was slow, but it worked
> and we were happy.  It was our machine!!

What were you using for paging/swapping on that?

Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

More information about the TUHS mailing list