clemc at ccc.com
Fri Nov 21 23:06:23 AEST 2014
Re: enable-34 - There are no backplane mods. As I recall it used normal
memory, just enabled the top bits in the address map which were not driven
by the 40 class processors. I'll see if I can dig up some doc for it,
which I might still have. I'm traveling, so this will have to wait for a
As for running 2.11bsd - I can't say as I never tried it. What the enable
board will do it give you 4Megs of memory. By using thunks and the memory
map, the enable will allow the kernel to have I/O buffers, mbufs, and a
kernel I space that can grow beyond the 64k address limit - plus still have
room for a few user processes in memory at the same time.
RE: ultrix vs BSD 2* -- Once it's running, I don't think you are going to
find a lot differences mostly in what was packaged in the defaults system -
just shades of grey. Much less than the flavors of Linux these days IMO.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>
> Hilariously, I actually do have an enable-34 board in my stash.. Just saw
> it in the last week or so & will dig it out in next few days. So does that
> single board contain the memory and everything, or is this a backplane
> mod/special memory kind of setup?
> I'd be eager to run Ultrix jut for the extra flavor (I've only done the
> bsds on my pdp11s thus far), but one of my real desires here is to have the
> machine behave itself as a pretty normal net citizen, connecting through
> some sort of ethernet and running legit telnetd and ftpd. That said, I
> won't be too sad if that's impossible and kludges are required, but it is
> my initial hope. I guess I need to first ascertain exactly which 11/34 I
> have, how much ram I can scrounge up, which addressing scheme, etc. then
> move on to what I can actually do, software-wise, with the kit.
> With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this
> one? Sounds like that'd avoid a lot of the more sporty software
> modifications and let me have something that works like a "normal"
> modern-ish system. But then, I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could
> run that build much more easily and appropriately.. I guess I'm up for
> whatever is most historically appropriate, a good match for the hardware
> and at least able to be present on a contemporary network without
> intermediary kludge hardware.
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
>>> Well, 2.10 has SLIP,
>> SLIP means you still need the IP stack
>> . It
>> just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.
>>> but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple userland tool to talk
>>> to a frontend!
>> Actually there was tool that was almost all in userland to support
>> multiple sessions over single serial line between a Macs a UNIX system. My
>> memory is that it used Chesson's multiplexer (mpx) which is part of stock
>> V7 (his is pre-select system call). I wish I could remember the name of
>> that program. But I bet it or something like it could be repurposed pretty
>> quickly to talk to a frontend micro.
>> Biggest issue is interrupt overhead on serial ports on the 11. If this
>> is real HW, see you can find a real DEC DH or better yet - an Able DH/DM.
>> DH style interfaces will be a huge difference over DL's or DZs. DZs were
>> pigs on Vaxen and on an 11 a line at 19.2K continuous could kill it.
>> BTW: I thought of another option. It's not telnet or ftp, but if your
>> desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical
>> media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it. That
>> will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of
>> interface can matter from a performance standpoint.
>> TUHS mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TUHS