[cctalk] Re: Ultrix 11 installation and ZULU SCSI Disc Emulator
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 11:43, Henry Bent wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 at 13:00, hupfadekroua via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I tried several ways to get a working SCSI image to be successfully boote >> on a ZULU 2024 SCSI Emulator. >> >> 1. I do have an Image of an RZ25-E drive containing RSX11M Plus, which is >> booting properly. This is a raw dd based disc image of a SCSI drive. >> 2. I got a disc mage by Jacob, which is booting using simh, but not using >> the ZULU on a physical 11/73 >> 3. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x creating a >> RD54 image which won't boot on the ZULU an the physical 11/73 >> 4.. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x directly >> into a physical SCSI drive partition, created an image via dd which >> doesn't >> want to boot on the ZULU. Simh is booting properly from a dd image of this >> partition. >> 5. Simh is telling me in general using a (virtual) RQDX3 controller. Maybe >> the images created won't boot because of being created by the virtual RQDX >> 3 controller? >> >> How to create a raw disc w/o any controller specific format - simply a >> plain Ultrix 11 image as a target for a SCSI drive to be booted either >> from >> the physical, or from a virtual (ZULU). >> >> > Newer versions of SIMH (v4, I'm not sure exactly when support was added) > allow you to "set rq type=RQDX1" which in the case of the RD54 might make a > difference, and the Ultrix-11 ra driver does treat the controllers slightly > differently. I'm not sure that it should actually make a difference, but > that would be the first thing that I would try. > > How does the controller identify itself when booting RSX-11? That could > give some hints as to what might be happening with Ultrix. > > You could also try 2.11BSD, or even 2.9BSD, to see if those are able to > boot and see how they identify the controller. > Replying to myself here... I took a deeper dive through the Dilog SQ706A controller manual (the SCSI controller you're using) and it looks like it presents itself as a KDA50, though that's only an inference based on the fact that the manual suggests that you can run the KDA50 diagnostics on the controller. Ultrix-11 definitely treats this differently than the RQDX series, so perhaps that's the issue here. I went ahead and set up an Ultrix install on an RA81/KDA50 in SIMH that uses the disk sensibly since I wanted that for my own use, contact me off-list and I can send you the image. -Henry
[cctalk] Re: Ultrix 11 installation and ZULU SCSI Disc Emulator
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 at 13:00, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: > Hi all, > > I tried several ways to get a working SCSI image to be successfully boote > on a ZULU 2024 SCSI Emulator. > > 1. I do have an Image of an RZ25-E drive containing RSX11M Plus, which is > booting properly. This is a raw dd based disc image of a SCSI drive. > 2. I got a disc mage by Jacob, which is booting using simh, but not using > the ZULU on a physical 11/73 > 3. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x creating a > RD54 image which won't boot on the ZULU an the physical 11/73 > 4.. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x directly > into a physical SCSI drive partition, created an image via dd which doesn't > want to boot on the ZULU. Simh is booting properly from a dd image of this > partition. > 5. Simh is telling me in general using a (virtual) RQDX3 controller. Maybe > the images created won't boot because of being created by the virtual RQDX > 3 controller? > > How to create a raw disc w/o any controller specific format - simply a > plain Ultrix 11 image as a target for a SCSI drive to be booted either from > the physical, or from a virtual (ZULU). > > Newer versions of SIMH (v4, I'm not sure exactly when support was added) allow you to "set rq type=RQDX1" which in the case of the RD54 might make a difference, and the Ultrix-11 ra driver does treat the controllers slightly differently. I'm not sure that it should actually make a difference, but that would be the first thing that I would try. How does the controller identify itself when booting RSX-11? That could give some hints as to what might be happening with Ultrix. You could also try 2.11BSD, or even 2.9BSD, to see if those are able to boot and see how they identify the controller. -Henry
[cctalk] Ultrix 11 installation and ZULU SCSI Disc Emulator
Hi all, I tried several ways to get a working SCSI image to be successfully boote on a ZULU 2024 SCSI Emulator. 1. I do have an Image of an RZ25-E drive containing RSX11M Plus, which is booting properly. This is a raw dd based disc image of a SCSI drive. 2. I got a disc mage by Jacob, which is booting using simh, but not using the ZULU on a physical 11/73 3. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x creating a RD54 image which won't boot on the ZULU an the physical 11/73 4.. I created a fresh installation of Ultrix 11 using simh 3.9.x directly into a physical SCSI drive partition, created an image via dd which doesn't want to boot on the ZULU. Simh is booting properly from a dd image of this partition. 5. Simh is telling me in general using a (virtual) RQDX3 controller. Maybe the images created won't boot because of being created by the virtual RQDX 3 controller? How to create a raw disc w/o any controller specific format - simply a plain Ultrix 11 image as a target for a SCSI drive to be booted either from the physical, or from a virtual (ZULU). Best Andreas
[cctalk] Re: gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
The Gotek is DU1 On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:07 PM hupfadekroua wrote: > of course ... "not RX50 disk" ... > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:06 PM hupfadekroua > wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> I was successfully able to transfer your floppy images and boot from >> 001.img using my Gotek >> >> What's the difference between 001.img and 001-1.img? >> >> Additionally which device I've to choose at the boot command? >> >> Trying rx(..,..) I'm getting "not RX50 disk2". >> >> Best >> >> Andreas >> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:47 PM Chris Zach via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, they're on my web server https://www.crystel.com/pdp/os. Use the >>> .img ones for a Gotek, .imd ones to make floppies with teledisk or >>> whatever it was. >>> >>> CZ >>> >>> On 10/19/2023 11:15 AM, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: >>> > Hello all, >>> > >>> > is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used >>> in >>> > the Ultrix-11 installation example? >>> > >>> > Best regards >>> >>
[cctalk] Re: gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
of course ... "not RX50 disk" ... On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:06 PM hupfadekroua wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I was successfully able to transfer your floppy images and boot from > 001.img using my Gotek > > What's the difference between 001.img and 001-1.img? > > Additionally which device I've to choose at the boot command? > > Trying rx(..,..) I'm getting "not RX50 disk2". > > Best > > Andreas > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:47 PM Chris Zach via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Yeah, they're on my web server https://www.crystel.com/pdp/os. Use the >> .img ones for a Gotek, .imd ones to make floppies with teledisk or >> whatever it was. >> >> CZ >> >> On 10/19/2023 11:15 AM, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used in >> > the Ultrix-11 installation example? >> > >> > Best regards >> >
[cctalk] Re: gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
Hi Chris, I was successfully able to transfer your floppy images and boot from 001.img using my Gotek What's the difference between 001.img and 001-1.img? Additionally which device I've to choose at the boot command? Trying rx(..,..) I'm getting "not RX50 disk2". Best Andreas On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:47 PM Chris Zach via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Yeah, they're on my web server https://www.crystel.com/pdp/os. Use the > .img ones for a Gotek, .imd ones to make floppies with teledisk or > whatever it was. > > CZ > > On 10/19/2023 11:15 AM, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used in > > the Ultrix-11 installation example? > > > > Best regards >
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 1:46 PM Henry Bent wrote: > I have a SIMH installation of Ultrix-11 3.1 on RL02 drives. Two RL02s is > enough for a base system and four (which would be what the DQ614 provides, if > it worked) would be more than enough for sources and work, etc. Yes. 40MB should be plenty of room. 10MB was definitely not enough for 2.9BSD, but at the time, I only had one RL02 drive. > The Ultrix-11 RL driver does fancy things with overlapped seeks that I'm sure > works on real hardware but on the DQ614, not so much. Ah... I can see that. It wouldn't surprise me if the DQ614 got most of its development and testing with RT-11 in mind, and possibly some RSX-11. I remember that the DEC RL controller (at least for PDP-11, not as sure about the RL8A) did support some pretty handy things for a multi-user OS, like overlapping seek, but I think in all the years I worked with DEC gear, only a few machines had multiple RL drives. Mostly I saw them as data transfer devices or for primary storage on small (single-user) systems. We did have one larger system, an 11/24 with four RL02, running RSTS/E and whatever we were using for accounting software. I didn't work on the machine myself except to physically disconnect and pack and move it from one site to another when we consolidated our operations back into one building. -ethan
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 13:28, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:21 AM Henry Bent via cctalk > wrote: > > Interesting. My Dilog DQ614 (ST506 emulating RL02s) specifically does > not > > work with Ultrix, but does work with 2.xBSD and v7, so I would not > > necessarily assume that a third-party board was going to work with > > Ultrix-11's drivers. > > I do not know what drives Ultrix-11 supports but it wouldn't be > shocking to find that you can't use an RL02 as the root install > device. An RL02 was only big enough for the base install of 2.9BSD > and not big enough for base+sources so I was never able to rebuild my > kernel (it all worked fine on an RK07 at work). > I have a SIMH installation of Ultrix-11 3.1 on RL02 drives. Two RL02s is enough for a base system and four (which would be what the DQ614 provides, if it worked) would be more than enough for sources and work, etc. The Ultrix-11 RL driver does fancy things with overlapped seeks that I'm sure works on real hardware but on the DQ614, not so much. -Henry
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:21 AM Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: > Interesting. My Dilog DQ614 (ST506 emulating RL02s) specifically does not > work with Ultrix, but does work with 2.xBSD and v7, so I would not > necessarily assume that a third-party board was going to work with > Ultrix-11's drivers. I have personally installed 2.9BSD on an 11/24 with RL11 and RL02 so I _know_ that works (and I would expect the DQ614 to work there too). I have a DQ614 but the Rodime drive that came with it was toast and I only recently got the RT11 utility to fiddle drives so I haven't ever tried to use mine. I may end up tossing an ST225 or ST241 on my DQ614 when I get around to trying it. I do not know what drives Ultrix-11 supports but it wouldn't be shocking to find that you can't use an RL02 as the root install device. An RL02 was only big enough for the base install of 2.9BSD and not big enough for base+sources so I was never able to rebuild my kernel (it all worked fine on an RK07 at work). In the past, I never did anything with 2.11BSD or Ultrix-11 because I didn't have a new enough setup (most of my gear came from the 70s and early 80s - no J-11 anywhere until recently). As mentioned, if it's a well-implemented MSCP SCSI controller (UC07, CQD220...), it should "just work" on any system there are MSCP drivers for. Cheers, -ethan
[cctalk] Re: gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
Yeah, they're on my web server https://www.crystel.com/pdp/os. Use the .img ones for a Gotek, .imd ones to make floppies with teledisk or whatever it was. CZ On 10/19/2023 11:15 AM, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: Hello all, is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used in the Ultrix-11 installation example? Best regards
[cctalk] Re: gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
Okay, we'll start with the basics. Download http://www.bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/magtapes/ultrix-11/Ultrix11-install.tap.gz . This is a pre-formatted tape made for use in SIMH. Make a reasonable pdp11.ini; mine looks like: -- set cpu 4M set cpu idle set tq0 lock att tq0 Ultrix11-install.tap set tq1 dis set tq2 dis set tq3 dis set rl dis set rp dis set rq0 rd54 att rq0 rd54-0.dsk set rq1 dis set rq2 dis set rq3 dis set xq type=deqna ;attach to whatever device you have... -- run "boot tq" and then you should be at the point where you can follow the instructions from https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt Now for the more advanced stuff: I had a recollection of having problems with installing Ultrix 3.1 on RA disks so I went back through the install procedure and confirmed this - the installer creates a /usr partition that is too small to hold the initial dump from the install tape. So if you're going to install on a simulator the drive should be an RD series. Ironically the RD31 gets the largest /usr partition. I don't know how much testing this distribution got, or who it was marketed to - I would be very interested to hear reports of it being used in the field. -Henry On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:15, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: > Hello all, > > is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used in > the Ultrix-11 installation example? > > Best regards >
[cctalk] gunkies.org - ultrix-11 installation example ...
Hello all, is there any source known how and where to get the floppy images used in the Ultrix-11 installation example? Best regards
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk > wrote: > > Hello all, > > does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based (11/73) > PDP11. > > A. I have sitting in front of me a PDP-11/83 running ULTRIX-11 v3.1 on MSCP SCSI via the CMD CQD-200 controller. It’s working beautifully for me, pointed at a SCSI2SD with “drives” around the size of an RA81. I just installed it last week from a replica original distro tape I made. Happy to send the image to you. You can boot the generic kernel and run /.setup/setup to reconfigure it to your hardware needs, recompile kernel, etc. If you have the means to use it, I could also make you a physical distribution tape so you can experience a real virgin install in all its proper glory. —Jake West Bridgewater, Pennsylvania
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 7:32 AM Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > If you have an MSCP translator type controller, but the translation is poorly > done, you might end up with it failing for some operating systems. That's > not too unlikely given that the MSCP spec was for a long time a DEC > confidential document, so third parties had to reverse engineer things (and > dodge DEC lawyers). > > paul I have at least one third-party vendor QBUS MSCP SCSI controller which has a sticker on the PCB which says "Licensed under U.S. Letters Patent 4,449,182" Which is of course the DEC MSCP patent: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/dsa/mscp/MSCP_Patent_4449182.pdf So I guess at least in that case the vendor did play along with DEC lawyers.
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
The EMULEX UC07 SCSI Adapter manual ( http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/emulex/UC0751001-F_UC07_Feb90.pdf) says: "Ultrix-11 V3.0 and above" Ulli Am Mi., 18. Okt. 2023 um 16:32 Uhr schrieb Paul Koning via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org>: > > > > On Oct 18, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 10:16, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 10/18/2023 10:00 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: > >>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk < > >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello all, > >>>> > >>>> does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based > >> (11/73) > >>>> PDP11. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ultrix-11 doesn't support SCSI disks, as far as I am aware. What > >> hardware > >>> are you trying to use? In any case, you can easily use SIMH to install > >> 3.1 > >>> (or your preferred version) and then transfer that to real hardware. > >> > >> PDP-11 SCSI Modules emulate MSCP and RA disks and work fine with > >> Ultrix-11. > >> > > > > Interesting. My Dilog DQ614 (ST506 emulating RL02s) specifically does > not > > work with Ultrix, but does work with 2.xBSD and v7, so I would not > > necessarily assume that a third-party board was going to work with > > Ultrix-11's drivers. > > There are two possible issues. One is that SCSI is a packet oriented > storage command/response system similar to MSCP but different. So the kind > of controllers Bill mentioned are essentiallly translators between the two > protocols. > > If what you have is a native SCSI controller -- one that exposes the > actual SCSI commands -- then that requires an entirely different driver > because that isn't MSCP. > > If you have an MSCP translator type controller, but the translation is > poorly done, you might end up with it failing for some operating systems. > That's not too unlikely given that the MSCP spec was for a long time a DEC > confidential document, so third parties had to reverse engineer things (and > dodge DEC lawyers). > > paul > >
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk > wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 10:16, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/18/2023 10:00 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based >> (11/73) >>>> PDP11. >>>> >>> >>> Ultrix-11 doesn't support SCSI disks, as far as I am aware. What >> hardware >>> are you trying to use? In any case, you can easily use SIMH to install >> 3.1 >>> (or your preferred version) and then transfer that to real hardware. >> >> PDP-11 SCSI Modules emulate MSCP and RA disks and work fine with >> Ultrix-11. >> > > Interesting. My Dilog DQ614 (ST506 emulating RL02s) specifically does not > work with Ultrix, but does work with 2.xBSD and v7, so I would not > necessarily assume that a third-party board was going to work with > Ultrix-11's drivers. There are two possible issues. One is that SCSI is a packet oriented storage command/response system similar to MSCP but different. So the kind of controllers Bill mentioned are essentiallly translators between the two protocols. If what you have is a native SCSI controller -- one that exposes the actual SCSI commands -- then that requires an entirely different driver because that isn't MSCP. If you have an MSCP translator type controller, but the translation is poorly done, you might end up with it failing for some operating systems. That's not too unlikely given that the MSCP spec was for a long time a DEC confidential document, so third parties had to reverse engineer things (and dodge DEC lawyers). paul
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 10:16, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 10/18/2023 10:00 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based > (11/73) > >> PDP11. > >> > > > > Ultrix-11 doesn't support SCSI disks, as far as I am aware. What > hardware > > are you trying to use? In any case, you can easily use SIMH to install > 3.1 > > (or your preferred version) and then transfer that to real hardware. > > PDP-11 SCSI Modules emulate MSCP and RA disks and work fine with > Ultrix-11. > Interesting. My Dilog DQ614 (ST506 emulating RL02s) specifically does not work with Ultrix, but does work with 2.xBSD and v7, so I would not necessarily assume that a third-party board was going to work with Ultrix-11's drivers. -Henry
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On 10/18/2023 10:00 AM, Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: Hello all, does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based (11/73) PDP11. Ultrix-11 doesn't support SCSI disks, as far as I am aware. What hardware are you trying to use? In any case, you can easily use SIMH to install 3.1 (or your preferred version) and then transfer that to real hardware. PDP-11 SCSI Modules emulate MSCP and RA disks and work fine with Ultrix-11. bill
[cctalk] Re: PDP11 and Ultrix 11
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 09:56, hupfadekroua via cctalk wrote: > Hello all, > > does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based (11/73) > PDP11. > Ultrix-11 doesn't support SCSI disks, as far as I am aware. What hardware are you trying to use? In any case, you can easily use SIMH to install 3.1 (or your preferred version) and then transfer that to real hardware. -Henry
[cctalk] PDP11 and Ultrix 11
Hello all, does someone have a SCSI disc image of Ultrix 11 for a QBus based (11/73) PDP11. A.
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
On 8/28/2021 6:19 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: On 8/28/21 4:13 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/2021 1:15 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/21 1:03 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Yes, I did create a new kernel and copy it to the correct place and chmod 644 the new unix file. Did yo have fun playing with the overlays? :-) I don't know what this means. The kernel creation was automatic, it seemed to check for enough room. I guess you did the bare minimum to get the network up. When I buld a new kernel I tend to add all the devices (like multiple network cards and serial cards) that I may want in the future. I have often had to manually shift things around and usually create one or two additional overlays to get it all to fit. I actually enjoy doing it. :-) I had only toyed with the idea of adding a dzv11 so real terminals could be connected to a real pdp11 Ultrix-11 system. I guess I'll find out once I get there. On my Debian system I can install ftpd and telnetd (they are still in the Debian package list) which are the unsecure ones, but I don't know how to configure them or start them. As in, # systemctl restart ftpd Probably easier to turn them on on Ultrix-11. Just modify inetd.conf. Actually, I just looked and ftp is on by default. Telnet is not. I edited inetd.conf to uncomment telnet. It helped. It turns out to not be a hot topic: "How do I make my Liinux system less secure?", but for us that noodle around with old computers with obsolete operating systems it is exactly what we need. In the past I remember using Filezilla to go from a Windows7 machine into a Vax without any problem. I suspect you will be somewhat disappointed with networking in Ultrix-11. Not that there is something wrong with it, just that the hardware is nothing like you are used to. In the early days of networking it was not unusual for systems like the PDP-11 to crash just because of the traffic passing by on their network connection. The advent of switches helped alleviate that but it is still common to crash a system by pushing data at it from a modern ftp. I expect FileZila will do it. To be honest, I always preferred Kermit for moving files. It is possible to keep packet sizes down and even slow down the transfer rate to give the PDP time to handle it. bill I brought up a Vax Alpha 3000-300 and tried interacting with the Ultrix-11 simulation: Starting in Ultrix-11 I could log into the vax via telnet. Ultrix-11 ftp was able to transfer a short ascii file from the Vax to the Ultrix-11 sim. Just another note. remember that ulimit is only 1024 on Ultrix-11 by default. That means no file larger than 10M. Unless you raise ulimit. Going the other way, Ultrix-11 would reject an ftp request from the vax, here is the error message - $ ftp 192.169.0.52 %TCPIP-E-FTP_NETERR, I/O error on network device -SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable $ Been a long time. Could have to do with PTYs. Remember, FTP takes two open connection and the number of possible connection on Ultrix-11 is very limited. I think I noticed that I only had 2 PTY's during the install/kernel process. Glad you mentioned this, it had gone over my head. Ignore the VAX error, the error was mine. I typed the ip wrong, should have been 192.168.0.52, not 192.169.0.52. Blame it on bad eyes, old age, small font, clumsy fingers. Ultrix-11 would allow a telnet connection (after the change to inetd.conf) and I could do an ls, but when I asked for a man page it hung up. Nothing after that, had to kill it. I told you it was very unstable. :-) I got the same result whether I was telneting in from the Vax or Linux computer. Probably not news to you. I wonder if real hardware works just like this Sometimes, but I always found SIMH less reliable with my limited use of it. I always preferred real hardware. It was good to find out that you can get things in/out of the Ultrix-11 simulation. Like I said, I usually find Kermit over emulated serial lines to be more efficient at moving stuff on and off. The network may be faster but failures after 4 hours of a transfer can be very frustrating. Better to let kkermit have it over night and then get a fresh start in the morning. bill
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
On 8/28/21 4:13 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/2021 1:15 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/21 1:03 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Yes, I did create a new kernel and copy it to the correct place and chmod 644 the new unix file. Did yo have fun playing with the overlays? :-) I don't know what this means. The kernel creation was automatic, it seemed to check for enough room. I guess you did the bare minimum to get the network up. When I buld a new kernel I tend to add all the devices (like multiple network cards and serial cards) that I may want in the future. I have often had to manually shift things around and usually create one or two additional overlays to get it all to fit. I actually enjoy doing it. :-) On my Debian system I can install ftpd and telnetd (they are still in the Debian package list) which are the unsecure ones, but I don't know how to configure them or start them. As in, # systemctl restart ftpd Probably easier to turn them on on Ultrix-11. Just modify inetd.conf. Actually, I just looked and ftp is on by default. Telnet is not. I edited inetd.conf to uncomment telnet. It helped. It turns out to not be a hot topic: "How do I make my Liinux system less secure?", but for us that noodle around with old computers with obsolete operating systems it is exactly what we need. In the past I remember using Filezilla to go from a Windows7 machine into a Vax without any problem. I suspect you will be somewhat disappointed with networking in Ultrix-11. Not that there is something wrong with it, just that the hardware is nothing like you are used to. In the early days of networking it was not unusual for systems like the PDP-11 to crash just because of the traffic passing by on their network connection. The advent of switches helped alleviate that but it is still common to crash a system by pushing data at it from a modern ftp. I expect FileZila will do it. To be honest, I always preferred Kermit for moving files. It is possible to keep packet sizes down and even slow down the transfer rate to give the PDP time to handle it. bill I brought up a Vax Alpha 3000-300 and tried interacting with the Ultrix-11 simulation: Starting in Ultrix-11 I could log into the vax via telnet. Ultrix-11 ftp was able to transfer a short ascii file from the Vax to the Ultrix-11 sim. Just another note. remember that ulimit is only 1024 on Ultrix-11 by default. That means no file larger than 10M. Unless you raise ulimit. Going the other way, Ultrix-11 would reject an ftp request from the vax, here is the error message - $ ftp 192.169.0.52 %TCPIP-E-FTP_NETERR, I/O error on network device -SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable $ Been a long time. Could have to do with PTYs. Remember, FTP takes two open connection and the number of possible connection on Ultrix-11 is very limited. Ultrix-11 would allow a telnet connection (after the change to inetd.conf) and I could do an ls, but when I asked for a man page it hung up. Nothing after that, had to kill it. I told you it was very unstable. :-) I got the same result whether I was telneting in from the Vax or Linux computer. Probably not news to you. I wonder if real hardware works just like this Sometimes, but I always found SIMH less reliable with my limited use of it. I always preferred real hardware. It was good to find out that you can get things in/out of the Ultrix-11 simulation. Like I said, I usually find Kermit over emulated serial lines to be more efficient at moving stuff on and off. The network may be faster but failures after 4 hours of a transfer can be very frustrating. Better to let kkermit have it over night and then get a fresh start in the morning. bill
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
On 8/28/2021 1:15 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/21 1:03 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Yes, I did create a new kernel and copy it to the correct place and chmod 644 the new unix file. Did yo have fun playing with the overlays? :-) I don't know what this means. The kernel creation was automatic, it seemed to check for enough room. On my Debian system I can install ftpd and telnetd (they are still in the Debian package list) which are the unsecure ones, but I don't know how to configure them or start them. As in, # systemctl restart ftpd Probably easier to turn them on on Ultrix-11. Just modify inetd.conf. Actually, I just looked and ftp is on by default. Telnet is not. I edited inetd.conf to uncomment telnet. It helped. It turns out to not be a hot topic: "How do I make my Liinux system less secure?", but for us that noodle around with old computers with obsolete operating systems it is exactly what we need. In the past I remember using Filezilla to go from a Windows7 machine into a Vax without any problem. I suspect you will be somewhat disappointed with networking in Ultrix-11. Not that there is something wrong with it, just that the hardware is nothing like you are used to. In the early days of networking it was not unusual for systems like the PDP-11 to crash just because of the traffic passing by on their network connection. The advent of switches helped alleviate that but it is still common to crash a system by pushing data at it from a modern ftp. I expect FileZila will do it. To be honest, I always preferred Kermit for moving files. It is possible to keep packet sizes down and even slow down the transfer rate to give the PDP time to handle it. bill I brought up a Vax Alpha 3000-300 and tried interacting with the Ultrix-11 simulation: Starting in Ultrix-11 I could log into the vax via telnet. Ultrix-11 ftp was able to transfer a short ascii file from the Vax to the Ultrix-11 sim. Going the other way, Ultrix-11 would reject an ftp request from the vax, here is the error message - $ ftp 192.169.0.52 %TCPIP-E-FTP_NETERR, I/O error on network device -SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable $ Ultrix-11 would allow a telnet connection (after the change to inetd.conf) and I could do an ls, but when I asked for a man page it hung up. Nothing after that, had to kill it. I got the same result whether I was telneting in from the Vax or Linux computer. Probably not news to you. I wonder if real hardware works just like this It was good to find out that you can get things in/out of the Ultrix-11 simulation. Doug
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
On 8/28/21 1:03 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Yes, I did create a new kernel and copy it to the correct place and chmod 644 the new unix file. Did yo have fun playing with the overlays? :-) On my Debian system I can install ftpd and telnetd (they are still in the Debian package list) which are the unsecure ones, but I don't know how to configure them or start them. As in, # systemctl restart ftpd Probably easier to turn them on on Ultrix-11. Just modify inetd.conf. Actually, I just looked and ftp is on by default. Telnet is not. It turns out to not be a hot topic: "How do I make my Liinux system less secure?", but for us that noodle around with old computers with obsolete operating systems it is exactly what we need. In the past I remember using Filezilla to go from a Windows7 machine into a Vax without any problem. I suspect you will be somewhat disappointed with networking in Ultrix-11. Not that there is something wrong with it, just that the hardware is nothing like you are used to. In the early days of networking it was not unusual for systems like the PDP-11 to crash just because of the traffic passing by on their network connection. The advent of switches helped alleviate that but it is still common to crash a system by pushing data at it from a modern ftp. I expect FileZila will do it. To be honest, I always preferred Kermit for moving files. It is possible to keep packet sizes down and even slow down the transfer rate to give the PDP time to handle it. bill
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
The old-school way to do this is to install inetd, ensure it gets started up, and uncomment the line in its config-file (/etc/inetd.conf ?) for telnet. Setting up an ftp chroot area is painful. If you're using cleartext passwords (telnet) anyway, I'd set up rlogin/rsh, and use rcp. Same story: /etc/inetd.conf, or whatever Debian replaced that with. Assuming Ultrix-11 has rsh/rcp, that is.
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
Yes, I did create a new kernel and copy it to the correct place and chmod 644 the new unix file. On my Debian system I can install ftpd and telnetd (they are still in the Debian package list) which are the unsecure ones, but I don't know how to configure them or start them. As in, # systemctl restart ftpd It turns out to not be a hot topic: "How do I make my Liinux system less secure?", but for us that noodle around with old computers with obsolete operating systems it is exactly what we need. In the past I remember using Filezilla to go from a Windows7 machine into a Vax without any problem. Doug On 8/28/2021 12:54 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/28/21 12:43 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Its been fun working with Ultrix-11 and have had success with the help of the list. Thanks. The tape file from Bill Gunshannon will create a working system. Yay! I'm at the point of trying to network the SIMH pdp11 Ultrix-11 system. I have a few observations: 1. The youtube video 'Ultrix-11' shows connecting to sunOS systems. OK, he did this by simply issuing a single ifconfig command. That didn't work for me. I assume you built a new kernel with the right networking interface in it? :-) 2. Instead, I used the netsetup script supplied with the system, and had to reboot to get networking up. I did seem to come up OK. 3. The SIMH FAQ suggests using a 2nd ethernet port, I was able to do this. The linux computer I am running SIMH on has 2 ports. 4. The Ultrix-11 telnet ftp are old, unsecure versions, how do you connect to a modern Linux machine? The Linux machines refuse the connections. All telnet and ftp connectionms are old and insecure. There is no such thing as secure telnet or ftp (or rsh or finger, you get the picture). If you wish to go from the Ultrix-11 system to the Linux system you will need to explicitly turn on telnetd and/or ftpd. Or, do the same on Ultrix-11 and go the other way. There is no ssh for Ultrix-11 and I seriously doubt there ever could be. 5. I also looked at the tuhs archive. The Fred build script that generates a tk50 bootable tape image didn't work for me. I substituted a file for the tape device and it caused SIMH to Halt. Don't remember what system I bult the tape on but I doubt it was an Ultrix-11 system. Probably a VAX runnning netbbsd under SIMH. bill
Ultrix-11 Networking
Its been fun working with Ultrix-11 and have had success with the help of the list. Thanks. The tape file from Bill Gunshannon will create a working system. Yay! I'm at the point of trying to network the SIMH pdp11 Ultrix-11 system. I have a few observations: 1. The youtube video 'Ultrix-11' shows connecting to sunOS systems. OK, he did this by simply issuing a single ifconfig command. That didn't work for me. 2. Instead, I used the netsetup script supplied with the system, and had to reboot to get networking up. I did seem to come up OK. 3. The SIMH FAQ suggests using a 2nd ethernet port, I was able to do this. The linux computer I am running SIMH on has 2 ports. 4. The Ultrix-11 telnet ftp are old, unsecure versions, how do you connect to a modern Linux machine? The Linux machines refuse the connections. 5. I also looked at the tuhs archive. The Fred build script that generates a tk50 bootable tape image didn't work for me. I substituted a file for the tape device and it caused SIMH to Halt. Doug
Re: Ultrix-11 Networking
On 8/28/21 12:43 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Its been fun working with Ultrix-11 and have had success with the help of the list. Thanks. The tape file from Bill Gunshannon will create a working system. Yay! I'm at the point of trying to network the SIMH pdp11 Ultrix-11 system. I have a few observations: 1. The youtube video 'Ultrix-11' shows connecting to sunOS systems. OK, he did this by simply issuing a single ifconfig command. That didn't work for me. I assume you built a new kernel with the right networking interface in it? :-) 2. Instead, I used the netsetup script supplied with the system, and had to reboot to get networking up. I did seem to come up OK. 3. The SIMH FAQ suggests using a 2nd ethernet port, I was able to do this. The linux computer I am running SIMH on has 2 ports. 4. The Ultrix-11 telnet ftp are old, unsecure versions, how do you connect to a modern Linux machine? The Linux machines refuse the connections. All telnet and ftp connectionms are old and insecure. There is no such thing as secure telnet or ftp (or rsh or finger, you get the picture). If you wish to go from the Ultrix-11 system to the Linux system you will need to explicitly turn on telnetd and/or ftpd. Or, do the same on Ultrix-11 and go the other way. There is no ssh for Ultrix-11 and I seriously doubt there ever could be. 5. I also looked at the tuhs archive. The Fred build script that generates a tk50 bootable tape image didn't work for me. I substituted a file for the tape device and it caused SIMH to Halt. Don't remember what system I bult the tape on but I doubt it was an Ultrix-11 system. Probably a VAX runnning netbbsd under SIMH. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 7:24 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk > wrote: > > Terminal styling control codes are hit-and-miss even when exclusively using > modern tools. These days, I pretty much exclusively use iTerm2 as my > terminal emulator, which has a bewildering array of compatibility-tweaking > controls to fiddle with, because everything seems to interpret the alleged > standards differently. > > When I was relatively new to Linux I just put teminal oddities down to me > not knowing what I was doing and configuring it wrong, but then had the > opportunity to connect a real VT100 to it. "export TERM=vt100" is all that's > needed, right? There were *loads* of rendering errors, and I got my first > lesson into how well-tested Linux's termcap/terminfo database was. This is probably why DEC spent a significant amount of effort creating DEC Std 070, the Video terminal SRM. It's a full formal specification of all the terminal controls, and everyone was required to conform to that spec. As is common with DEC standards, it's sufficiently well written that you can simply do what it says and end up with a interoperable implementation. That's what I did in the video driver for RSTS on the Pro. (By the way, I like to mention the DDCMP spec as another example of this "conformance implies interoperability" property; my experience with that spec was the same.) Unfortunately, too few specs in the larger world are written to that level of quality. paul
Re: Ultrix-11
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> In the video on youtube and in my experience the screen formating codes
> seem to be incorrect. You can see this in the video when a man page is
> brought up. The bolding does not occur. I get the same result after
> installing. The same with vi, it doesn't work in the video and doesn't
> work after installation. I've tried Teraterm, putty, xterm all with the
> same result. Haven't tried an actual terminal yet. What was your
> experience?
Terminal styling control codes are hit-and-miss even when exclusively using
modern tools. These days, I pretty much exclusively use iTerm2 as my
terminal emulator, which has a bewildering array of compatibility-tweaking
controls to fiddle with, because everything seems to interpret the alleged
standards differently.
When I was relatively new to Linux I just put teminal oddities down to me
not knowing what I was doing and configuring it wrong, but then had the
opportunity to connect a real VT100 to it. "export TERM=vt100" is all that's
needed, right? There were *loads* of rendering errors, and I got my first
lesson into how well-tested Linux's termcap/terminfo database was.
Fast-forward a quarter-century and our terminal emulators are expected to
handle Unicode, which brings variable-width characters to our fixed-grid
terminal emulators, yet not break too badly if the endpoint is not
Unicode-aware and sends something like Latin-1 instead.
Bold and so on are set via SGR ("Select Graphic Rendition") sequences, and
Wikipedia gives a summary at
.
Here's a quick bash one-liner to display them on your terminal:
for i in $(seq 1 127) ; do printf '\033[%dm SGR %d \033[0m\n' $i $i ; done
(Progressively reduce that 127 if your terminal doesn't have scrollback and
you can't see the earlier entries.)
My *terminal* (i.e. iTerm2) supports 1-5, 7, 9, 30-39, 40-49, 90-97 and
100-107, i.e. bold, dim, italic, underline, blink, inverse, strikethrough,
and all of the colours.
However, a lot of useful software includes its own nested terminal emulator,
and support is less good: connecting to a remote server using mosh(1) loses
dim and strikethrough; tmux(1) turns italic into inverse, except on FreeBSD
where it also loses dim, blink and strikethrough and mysteriously gives me
another underline at 21 (probably due to it knowing about double-underline,
but doing a substitution for the benefit of my terminal which doesn't). And
if I use "watch -dc" to run a command repeatedly and highlight the changes,
it only supports the 8 basic colours.
If you test your own systems you may well come up with different results,
because this nested emulation relies on termcap/terminfo databases knowing
about the full capabilities of your terminal (MacOS doesn't include
sitm/ritm for italic, for example) and TERM being set correctly at each
level of nesting, so good luck with that.
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/25/2021 5:45 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: On Aug 25, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I have near zero PDP-11 Unix experience, but I remember one flavor (BSD 2.11 ?) which set the top bit in its alleged ASCII output, which of course would break any terminal expecting actual 8 bit coding. I discovered working with Unix V6 on my '11/45 that its tty output driver is hard coded to always cook bit 8 as a parity bit, for any character where bit 8 is not already set (see Lions, line 8522). --FritzM. My earlier reply didn't make it to the list. Here it is: In simh I am using an 11/53 cpu which has 2 serial ports and you do this : sim> set tti 7b which clears the higher order bit. In my configuration tti is the console. With this set vi and man pages work as expected, more also. Doug
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > I have near zero PDP-11 Unix experience, but I remember one flavor (BSD 2.11 > ?) which set the top bit in its alleged ASCII output, which of course would > break any terminal expecting actual 8 bit coding. I discovered working with Unix V6 on my '11/45 that its tty output driver is hard coded to always cook bit 8 as a parity bit, for any character where bit 8 is not already set (see Lions, line 8522). --FritzM.
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > Same thing at the moment. I really don't remember much from the past > as I haven't used Ultrix-11 in several years. I suspect it has > something to do with number of bits and parity. Could be. Since parity always was rather silly it isn't normally used; I'm surprised DEC didn't delete it from Ultrix the way they did for all the other operating systems. If you have a real terminal you can configure it for 7 bits and the matching parity, but terminal emulators may not have that ability. In any case, for that the simh command for 7 bit terminal output is a simple fix. paul
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/25/21 12:04 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: On 8/22/2021 8:21 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/21/21 11:50 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. JRJ Actually, Ultrix-11 is based on V7m and Ultrix032 is based on BSD 4.x. bill In the video on youtube and in my experience the screen formating codes seem to be incorrect. You can see this in the video when a man page is brought up. The bolding does not occur. I get the same result after installing. The same with vi, it doesn't work in the video and doesn't work after installation. I've tried Teraterm, putty, xterm all with the same result. Haven't tried an actual terminal yet. What was your experience? Same thing at the moment. I really don't remember much from the past as I haven't used Ultrix-11 in several years. I suspect it has something to do with number of bits and parity. May be another thing that works once you have a non-generic kernel. I seem to remember RS232 character characteristics changing during the boot process. I think BSD211 has the same quirk. Of course, once you have a custom kernel you can use a better serial card and login to that. :-) I am hoping top get back to this soon, but at the moment I have a house full of sick people and I am pretty much the only one still able to moitivate. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 12:04 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk > wrote: >> > In the video on youtube and in my experience the screen formating codes seem > to be incorrect. You can see this in the video when a man page is brought > up. The bolding does not occur. I get the same result after installing. > The same with vi, it doesn't work in the video and doesn't work after > installation. I've tried Teraterm, putty, xterm all with the same result. > Haven't tried an actual terminal yet. What was your experience? I have near zero PDP-11 Unix experience, but I remember one flavor (BSD 2.11 ?) which set the top bit in its alleged ASCII output, which of course would break any terminal expecting actual 8 bit coding. In particular, code points in the range 128-159 have a very different meaning from those in the range 0-31, and a terminal correctly implementing ANSI controls (such as a VT220) would show this clearly. You can tell SIMH to force the top bit to zero in terminal output; that will restore normal behavior with current terminals or terminal emulators. No idea if that's the reason for the problem you were seeing, but it's a possibility that's easy to test. paul
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/22/2021 8:21 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/21/21 11:50 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. JRJ Actually, Ultrix-11 is based on V7m and Ultrix032 is based on BSD 4.x. bill In the video on youtube and in my experience the screen formating codes seem to be incorrect. You can see this in the video when a man page is brought up. The bolding does not occur. I get the same result after installing. The same with vi, it doesn't work in the video and doesn't work after installation. I've tried Teraterm, putty, xterm all with the same result. Haven't tried an actual terminal yet. What was your experience? Doug
Re: Ultrix-11
Thanks Warner and Ethan. That is very helpful. I had not realised that the partition sizes were REALLY hard wired - as in set in the code. That explains why there is no option to set the size at installation time. I will redo the installation with that in mind. Cheers Peter On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 22:03, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:26 PM Peter Allan via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple >> solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? Even though >> an >> RD54 drive is not huge, most of it is not taken up by the root partition >> plus the /usr partition, but is available for use as (on the video at >> least) /user1. >> >> I will give it a try after the weekend and see what happens. >> > > I was going to try tonight. The dksizes.c table suggests that it is 10MB > instead of 8.5MB on the RD54. Yet someone else said it was smaller, so I > wanted to check > > Warner > > > Cheers >> >> Peter Allan >> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:38, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk >> > wrote: >> > > I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from >> > > https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en >> > > which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room >> video >> > on >> > > YouTube that I think started this thread. >> > > >> > > It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on >> > /usr. >> > >> > /usr was usually tight back in the day. >> > >> > > How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at >> > > installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can >> it be >> > > done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not >> what a >> > > system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, >> > > especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to >> create >> > > /user1. >> > >> > In the 70s and early 80s, it was not at all uncommon to have multiple >> > disk drives mounted to add up to enough space, especially to put user >> > files on their own device to keep them from competing with free space >> > in the system areas. Also, older, smaller disks were often cheaper >> > than the newest/largest disk drives, or systems would be put together >> > from repurposed hardware rather than purchasing new. For a single >> > data point, my employer bought a new RA81 in 1984. For 424MB it was >> > $24,000. Most machines had a _lot_ less disk in those days. Our main >> > UNIX machine was an old 11/750 (2MB RAM) with 2x RK07 (28MB each). It >> > was quite a jump when I put Ultrix 1.1 on an 11/730 w/RB80. The CPU >> > was 30% slower, but it had 5MB of RAM and a 121MB disk, so as a >> > machine that spent most of its time with a single user (me), it was >> > fine. >> > >> > When disks were routinely 1-30MB (RK05... RK07 or RP03), it was >> > totally common to have 2-3 disks on a machine. >> > >> > All that said, I looked over this install write-up and it seems to >> > assume you have one disk and it slices and dices with default sizes... >> > >> > >> > >> http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt >> > >> > I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set >> > up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior >> > to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy >> > with this installer script. >> > >> > > I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other >> > > locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional >> > > software? >> > >> > That was done, as was mounting an entire second disk for /usr. One of >> > the challenges is making sure you have enough tools accessible on the >> > boot device to bring the machine up far enough to mount the additional >> > devices. This is part of why there are system tools in /bin, >> > /usr/bin, etc. You could depend on the contents of /bin being there >> > before /usr was mounted. Also, traditionally, programs in /bin were >> > statically linked so that you didn't have to have specific libraries >> > available at the time. >> > >> > The simplest solution, of course, is just get a bigger disk, but where >> > that wasn't possible (which was most of the time), people did use soft >> > links or multiple spindles to aggregate enough space to get by. >> > >> > Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install >> > 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an >> > RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial >> > restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. >> > >> > -ethan >> > >> >
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/21/21 11:50 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. JRJ Actually, Ultrix-11 is based on V7m and Ultrix032 is based on BSD 4.x. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:50 PM Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: > On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. > > > > At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I > tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release > of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was > really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... > > > > paul > > > >> On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech < > cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> > >> images up under > http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip > > > > They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, > whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. > Ultrix32 was based on 4BSD, but Ultrix-11 is very definitely v7m rebranded. Ultrix--11 2.0 did pull in some improvements from 2.9BSD, System III and System V, at least according to the SPD. Ultrix-11 3.0 pulled in networking from 2.10BSD (or 2.10BSD got it from Ultrix) at least based on source inspection. Warner JRJ >
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/21/2021 10:50 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. JRJ OOOPS. Belay that. Further reading of the SPD seems to imply that Ultrix-11 was simply an evolutionary step from V7m to support more hardware - notably the 11.73. JRJ
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/17/2021 1:39 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip They are indeed different. V7m is based on 7th edition A UNIX, whereas Ultrix was based in BSD. JRJ
Re: Ultrix-11
On 2021-08-20 13:14, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 8/20/21 12:38 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: >> Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install >> 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an >> RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial >> restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. > > Those were the days. Sadly, most people in the business today know > nothing about them. Yeah, tell those kids, which have now 1/2 TB on their phones ;-) I was musing about it, when I noticed few days ago, that a picture file of a decent camera this days is larger, than my RL02 was back then :(
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/20/21 6:45 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:30 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: On 8/20/21 4:25 PM, Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: > The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple > solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? By default, no. /dev/ra00 4606 3080 1526 67% / /dev/ra01 9598 2849 6749 30% /usr /dev/ra03 423041 8773 414268 2% /user1 Which controller did you use for the ra81? Because it's an 11/44 it defaults to UDA50. I could not figure out how to make it a KDA50 on a Qbus machine. test1# newfs ULTRIX-11 New File System Program For help, type ? or help, then press . Command < exit help newfs table >: table ULTRIX-11 System's Disk Configuration: X = disk not configured, NED = disk configured but not present. DiskCntlr Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Cntlr # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - - UDA50A 0 RA81 RA81 RA81 RA81 X X X X Command < exit help newfs table >: exit test1# bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:30 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 8/20/21 4:25 PM, Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: > > The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple > > solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? > > By default, no. > > /dev/ra00 46063080152667%/ > /dev/ra01 95982849674930%/usr > /dev/ra03 4230418773 414268 2%/user1 > Which controller did you use for the ra81? Warner
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/20/21 4:25 PM, Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? By default, no. /dev/ra00 46063080152667%/ /dev/ra01 95982849674930%/usr /dev/ra03 4230418773 414268 2%/user1 I used partition 3 which is the rest of the disk not used by Ultrix-11 and then did the symbolic link thing in the installs. Even though an RD54 drive is not huge, most of it is not taken up by the root partition plus the /usr partition, but is available for use as (on the video at least) /user1. That is true, but I seem to remember that even then it is not enough space for a full install. And I plan to put the sources on as well. I will give it a try after the weekend and see what happens. It's all good fun. But, as I said, the real fun doesn't begin until you go to build a new kernel with more features in it. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:26 PM Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: > The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple > solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? Even though an > RD54 drive is not huge, most of it is not taken up by the root partition > plus the /usr partition, but is available for use as (on the video at > least) /user1. > > I will give it a try after the weekend and see what happens. > I was going to try tonight. The dksizes.c table suggests that it is 10MB instead of 8.5MB on the RD54. Yet someone else said it was smaller, so I wanted to check Warner Cheers > > Peter Allan > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:38, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk > > wrote: > > > I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from > > > https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en > > > which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video > > on > > > YouTube that I think started this thread. > > > > > > It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on > > /usr. > > > > /usr was usually tight back in the day. > > > > > How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at > > > installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it > be > > > done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what > a > > > system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, > > > especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to > create > > > /user1. > > > > In the 70s and early 80s, it was not at all uncommon to have multiple > > disk drives mounted to add up to enough space, especially to put user > > files on their own device to keep them from competing with free space > > in the system areas. Also, older, smaller disks were often cheaper > > than the newest/largest disk drives, or systems would be put together > > from repurposed hardware rather than purchasing new. For a single > > data point, my employer bought a new RA81 in 1984. For 424MB it was > > $24,000. Most machines had a _lot_ less disk in those days. Our main > > UNIX machine was an old 11/750 (2MB RAM) with 2x RK07 (28MB each). It > > was quite a jump when I put Ultrix 1.1 on an 11/730 w/RB80. The CPU > > was 30% slower, but it had 5MB of RAM and a 121MB disk, so as a > > machine that spent most of its time with a single user (me), it was > > fine. > > > > When disks were routinely 1-30MB (RK05... RK07 or RP03), it was > > totally common to have 2-3 disks on a machine. > > > > All that said, I looked over this install write-up and it seems to > > assume you have one disk and it slices and dices with default sizes... > > > > > > > http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt > > > > I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set > > up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior > > to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy > > with this installer script. > > > > > I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other > > > locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional > > > software? > > > > That was done, as was mounting an entire second disk for /usr. One of > > the challenges is making sure you have enough tools accessible on the > > boot device to bring the machine up far enough to mount the additional > > devices. This is part of why there are system tools in /bin, > > /usr/bin, etc. You could depend on the contents of /bin being there > > before /usr was mounted. Also, traditionally, programs in /bin were > > statically linked so that you didn't have to have specific libraries > > available at the time. > > > > The simplest solution, of course, is just get a bigger disk, but where > > that wasn't possible (which was most of the time), people did use soft > > links or multiple spindles to aggregate enough space to get by. > > > > Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install > > 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an > > RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial > > restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. > > > > -ethan > > >
Re: Ultrix-11
The idea of using an RA81 drive as it is bigger sounds like a simple solution, but does it actually give a larger /usr partition? Even though an RD54 drive is not huge, most of it is not taken up by the root partition plus the /usr partition, but is available for use as (on the video at least) /user1. I will give it a try after the weekend and see what happens. Cheers Peter Allan On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:38, Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk > wrote: > > I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from > > https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en > > which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video > on > > YouTube that I think started this thread. > > > > It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on > /usr. > > /usr was usually tight back in the day. > > > How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at > > installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be > > done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a > > system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, > > especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create > > /user1. > > In the 70s and early 80s, it was not at all uncommon to have multiple > disk drives mounted to add up to enough space, especially to put user > files on their own device to keep them from competing with free space > in the system areas. Also, older, smaller disks were often cheaper > than the newest/largest disk drives, or systems would be put together > from repurposed hardware rather than purchasing new. For a single > data point, my employer bought a new RA81 in 1984. For 424MB it was > $24,000. Most machines had a _lot_ less disk in those days. Our main > UNIX machine was an old 11/750 (2MB RAM) with 2x RK07 (28MB each). It > was quite a jump when I put Ultrix 1.1 on an 11/730 w/RB80. The CPU > was 30% slower, but it had 5MB of RAM and a 121MB disk, so as a > machine that spent most of its time with a single user (me), it was > fine. > > When disks were routinely 1-30MB (RK05... RK07 or RP03), it was > totally common to have 2-3 disks on a machine. > > All that said, I looked over this install write-up and it seems to > assume you have one disk and it slices and dices with default sizes... > > > http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt > > I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set > up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior > to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy > with this installer script. > > > I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other > > locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional > > software? > > That was done, as was mounting an entire second disk for /usr. One of > the challenges is making sure you have enough tools accessible on the > boot device to bring the machine up far enough to mount the additional > devices. This is part of why there are system tools in /bin, > /usr/bin, etc. You could depend on the contents of /bin being there > before /usr was mounted. Also, traditionally, programs in /bin were > statically linked so that you didn't have to have specific libraries > available at the time. > > The simplest solution, of course, is just get a bigger disk, but where > that wasn't possible (which was most of the time), people did use soft > links or multiple spindles to aggregate enough space to get by. > > Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install > 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an > RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial > restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. > > -ethan >
Re: Ultrix-11
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 1:14 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt > > > > I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set > > up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior > > to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy > > with this installer script. > > I think the intent of the Ultrix-11 3,x install is to make it as > simple as possible to get a system up and running on the hardware > available in the day and then with time and experience one could > create more advanced systems. Yes. I was around in this era and learning to do a from-scratch install was an ordeal. DEC did package things up with a set of questions (vs knowing which lines of which files had to be hand-edited) and incorporated all the supported disks and tapes and serial muxes, etc. All DEC, of course, so if you had 3rd-party hardware you were out in the wilderness (we provide such a 3rd-party intelligent serial device into this environment so I know how hard it could be). If you had a standard DEC box, it was fairly push-button. That was part of their magic. It mostly worked. > I hope, eventually, to make a system > with four RA81 disks with root and usr occupying entire RA81's and > two more for User files. Wow! That's way bigger than our biggest machine at work in 1993. We had that 11/750 (that I upgraded to 8MB including adding the extra memory address line on the backplane) and it pinged back and forth between VMS 4.5 most of the time and Ultrix-32 3.something as needed for customers. It had a dedicated Fuji 160MB drive that mapped as two RM03s and a Fuji Eagle that used the RM05 device entry but patched for full capacity (400MB) plus that $26,000 RA81 - Total of just under 1GB on 3 spindles and two controllers (Unibus and CMI bus). When this box was running UNIX, I was the only user so I usually did that off-hours so everyone else could use VMS for workday tasks. > sadly, using an RA81 still only gives you: > /dev/ra01 95982849674930%/usr Tiny! > Those were the days. Sadly, most people in the business today know > nothing about them. The forgetting of this environment is why recently there's a push to collapse all UNIX system binaries into one place because "kids today" have never been on a system where the operating system is spread across multiple spindles for space/cost/performance reasons. Everyone is used to massive drives where the OS takes up 1% or less of the entire disk and you only really worry about space for logfiles or /var/tmp so that userland programs that leave big messes don't crush the boot volume with endless spewage. With variable-zone disks (1990s tech) people stopped bothering to try to tweak performance on cylinder boundaries because you used to have 14 heads and track-to-track switching was 10X faster than stepping. Some parts of the old UNIX dance I do not miss. ;-) -ethan
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 19, 2021, at 4:45 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > >> On Aug 19, 2021, at 4:37 PM, John Forecast via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 19, 2021, at 9:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 8/19/21 12:23 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:07 PM Bill Degnan wrote: >>>>> pretty cool >>>>> >>>> Thanks! Looking at the boot source I figured out that I just needed to >>>> build a non-generic kernel >>>> to get rid of the load device prompt... I'd somehow omitted that during the >>>> install... >>> >>> I always skip that during the install. Much safer to do it >>> later when I am sure I have a stable system. Need to add >>> serial devices and network device. I wonder if the DECNET >>> daemon from Linux would back port to Ultrix-11? CLient side >>> is provided, but no daemon that I am aware of. >> >> If by daemon you mean the kernel code supporting NSP and routing protocols >> then, no, it would not be an easy back port, that code makes heavy use of >> Linux-specific functions and capabilities. The user-level utilities would be >> much simpler but you would need to copy over the DECnet header files and >> implement the expected library routines (getnodebyname(), getobjent() etc). >> >> John. > > Does Linux follow the DECnet socket services of Ultrix, or are they > different? I remember that Ultrix had socket operations matching the power > of the DECnet application interface, stuff like connect data or > packet-oriented data transmission. It also supported a basic stream service, > which was mapped (somehow -- I'd like to find the details) onto the > underlying DECnet packet service. > As far as I can see they both implement the same socket level interfaces for I/O, there are some differences in some of the ioctl calls which are OS dependent. The base socket interface does not have the concept of optional data on connect/disconnect or even the difference between disconnect and abort so these are all implemented as ioctls and library routines are provided for common use cases. DECnet supports 2 types of socket; SOCK_SEQPACKET which maintains message boundaries just like other DECnet implementations and SOCK_STREAM which provides a TCP-like byte stream interface. All of the standard DEC utilities use SOCK_SEQPACKET and both ends of a link need to be of the same type for this to work correctly. SOCK_STREAM sockets transmit data as soon as it’s supplied (assuming flow control allows transmission) and a receive operation reads as much data as is available (subject to the user read request size) so, in this case, message boundaries can change from run to run. > I've been thinking it would be neat to have an httpd that answers DECnet > connections (object number 80, of course). > That should be relatively easy depending on how you want to delineate message boundaries. SOCK_SEQPACKET would be the easiest and should work against all DECnet implementations. If you use SOCK_STREAM with embedded message lengths, you need to make sure that the last byte of a message is also the last byte of a user-level write operation so EOM is set correctly and the remote end will be able to read the message without getting stuck waiting for EOM to be set. In general, SOCK_STREAM communication is only useful when talking to other systems which also implement SOCK_STREAM semantics. John. > paul > >
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/20/21 12:53 PM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: Bill; I started this thread by asking what I thought was a simple question about Ultrix-11. Yes, I am trying to install and learn about this fascinating piece of old software. Some of the folks who have posted know much more about Unix than I do and I am learning and enjoying this. The fun doesn't begin until you get to doing overlays. :-) I just tried using the f77 compiler to see how it works. It is really outdated and wouldn't recognize some accepted f77 items. Of course it is outdated, it comes from the late 70's. But I don't understand what F77 items it would not recognize. It was based on what was considered the most complete implementation of the then new F77 standard dated April 3, 1978. Are you sure you are not trying to use items from later standards? Even under SIMH it is slow! But the load libraries are there. I am sure Ultrix-11 could be tuned to get more speed. As for SIMH, speed depends on what you run it on. Under SIMH I would expect it would be the same speed running on an 11/23 as on an 11/83. There is a plot command in there that will drive a Tek 4014 graphics terminal. Eager to find out how that works. In the long run I would like to see if it can run on real pdp11 hardware and support multiple terminals/users. Just for fun! I have run it on 11/23, 11/24, 11/73, 11/93 and 11/44 real hardware. Using RL, RD and RA disks, I still have some but it is usually easier to set up a SIMH entity than a real hardware machine, even though I still have a number of them. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/20/21 12:38 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video on YouTube that I think started this thread. It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on /usr. /usr was usually tight back in the day. How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create /user1. In the 70s and early 80s, it was not at all uncommon to have multiple disk drives mounted to add up to enough space, especially to put user files on their own device to keep them from competing with free space in the system areas. Also, older, smaller disks were often cheaper than the newest/largest disk drives, or systems would be put together from repurposed hardware rather than purchasing new. For a single data point, my employer bought a new RA81 in 1984. For 424MB it was $24,000. Most machines had a _lot_ less disk in those days. Our main UNIX machine was an old 11/750 (2MB RAM) with 2x RK07 (28MB each). It was quite a jump when I put Ultrix 1.1 on an 11/730 w/RB80. The CPU was 30% slower, but it had 5MB of RAM and a 121MB disk, so as a machine that spent most of its time with a single user (me), it was fine. When disks were routinely 1-30MB (RK05... RK07 or RP03), it was totally common to have 2-3 disks on a machine. test1# df Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on /dev/ra00 46063080152667%/ /dev/ra01 95982849674930%/usr /dev/ra03 4230418773 414268 2%/user1 /dev/ra17 4409413678 437263 1%/user2 /dev/ra27 440941 2 440939 0%/user3 /dev/ra37 440941 6 440935 0%/user4 All that said, I looked over this install write-up and it seems to assume you have one disk and it slices and dices with default sizes... http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy with this installer script. I think the intent of the Ultrix-11 3,x install is to make it as simple as possible to get a system up and running on the hardware available in the day and then with time and experience one could create more advanced systems. I hope, eventually, to make a system with four RA81 disks with root and usr occupying entire RA81's and two more for User files. I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional software? That was done, as was mounting an entire second disk for /usr. One of the challenges is making sure you have enough tools accessible on the boot device to bring the machine up far enough to mount the additional devices. This is part of why there are system tools in /bin, /usr/bin, etc. You could depend on the contents of /bin being there before /usr was mounted. Also, traditionally, programs in /bin were statically linked so that you didn't have to have specific libraries available at the time. The simplest solution, of course, is just get a bigger disk, but where that wasn't possible (which was most of the time), people did use soft links or multiple spindles to aggregate enough space to get by. sadly, using an RA81 still only gives you: /dev/ra01 95982849674930%/usr Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. Those were the days. Sadly, most people in the business today know nothing about them. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
Bill; I started this thread by asking what I thought was a simple question about Ultrix-11. Yes, I am trying to install and learn about this fascinating piece of old software. Some of the folks who have posted know much more about Unix than I do and I am learning and enjoying this. I just tried using the f77 compiler to see how it works. It is really outdated and wouldn't recognize some accepted f77 items. Even under SIMH it is slow! But the load libraries are there. There is a plot command in there that will drive a Tek 4014 graphics terminal. Eager to find out how that works. In the long run I would like to see if it can run on real pdp11 hardware and support multiple terminals/users. Just for fun! Doug On 8/20/2021 12:24 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/20/21 11:50 AM, Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video on YouTube that I think started this thread. It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on /usr. How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create /user1. I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional software? That worked for me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers Peter Allan bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: > I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from > https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en > which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video on > YouTube that I think started this thread. > > It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on /usr. /usr was usually tight back in the day. > How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at > installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be > done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a > system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, > especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create > /user1. In the 70s and early 80s, it was not at all uncommon to have multiple disk drives mounted to add up to enough space, especially to put user files on their own device to keep them from competing with free space in the system areas. Also, older, smaller disks were often cheaper than the newest/largest disk drives, or systems would be put together from repurposed hardware rather than purchasing new. For a single data point, my employer bought a new RA81 in 1984. For 424MB it was $24,000. Most machines had a _lot_ less disk in those days. Our main UNIX machine was an old 11/750 (2MB RAM) with 2x RK07 (28MB each). It was quite a jump when I put Ultrix 1.1 on an 11/730 w/RB80. The CPU was 30% slower, but it had 5MB of RAM and a 121MB disk, so as a machine that spent most of its time with a single user (me), it was fine. When disks were routinely 1-30MB (RK05... RK07 or RP03), it was totally common to have 2-3 disks on a machine. All that said, I looked over this install write-up and it seems to assume you have one disk and it slices and dices with default sizes... http://ftp.fibranet.cat/UnixArchive/Distributions/DEC/Fred-Ultrix3/setup-3.1.txt I've installed older versions of UNIX where you had to explicitly set up disks and partitions (where you _could_ resize partitions). Prior to restoring the contents from tape. That didn't appear to be as easy with this installer script. > I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other > locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional > software? That was done, as was mounting an entire second disk for /usr. One of the challenges is making sure you have enough tools accessible on the boot device to bring the machine up far enough to mount the additional devices. This is part of why there are system tools in /bin, /usr/bin, etc. You could depend on the contents of /bin being there before /usr was mounted. Also, traditionally, programs in /bin were statically linked so that you didn't have to have specific libraries available at the time. The simplest solution, of course, is just get a bigger disk, but where that wasn't possible (which was most of the time), people did use soft links or multiple spindles to aggregate enough space to get by. Back in the day, I struggled to get enough disk space to install 2.9BSD on an 11/24. Two RK07s would have been a luxury. I had an RL02 (10MB) and I think maybe an RL01. I could get the initial restore to work but I didn't have enough space to rebuild my kernel. -ethan
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/20/21 11:50 AM, Peter Allan via cctalk wrote: I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video on YouTube that I think started this thread. It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on /usr. How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create /user1. I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional software? That worked for me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers Peter Allan bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:50 AM Peter Allan via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at
> installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be
> done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a
> system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do,
> especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create
> /user1.
>
Ultrix-11 is old-school Unix. This means that it uses hard-wired partitions.
It's based on the controller that you use. So for an RD54 connected to an
RQDX3 would use the rq_sizes entry from dksizes.c:
/*
* Sizes for RD31/RD32/RD51/RD52/RD53/RD54/RX50/RX33 disks.
*/
struct rasize rq_sizes[8] = { /* RQDX1/RQDX2/RQDX3/RUX1 */
9700, 0, /* RD31-32,51-54 root (swap+error log -
rd51) */
17300, 9700, /* RD32/RD52/RD53/RD54 /usr */
3100, 27000, /* RD32/RD52/RD53/RD54 swap + error log */
-2, 30100, /* RD32/RD52/RD53/RD54 user files */
-2, 9700, /* RD51 /usr */
3100, 9700, /* RD31 swap + error log */
-2, 12800, /* RD31 /usr */
-1, 0, /* RD31-32, RD51-54 entire disk */
};
* Note- nblocks has two values with special meaning:
*
*An nblocks value of -1 specifies a partition length of
*the size of the entire disk minus the partition's
starting
*block number. In other words, the partition ends at the
*end of the disk.
*
*An nblocks value of -2 specifies a partition length of
*the size of the disk minus the size of the maintenance
*area minus the starting block number of the partition.
*In other words, the partition ends at the start of the
*maintenance area.
So a RD-54 is
* RD54
* +---+
* | 0 9700 root|
* | |
* +---+
* | 1 17300 /usr|
* | |
* | |
* +---+
* | 2100 error log |
* | 3000 swap|
* +---+
* | 3 281068 user|
* | |
* | |
* | |
* +---+
* | 32 maintenance area |
* +---+
*7 311200 (user = 311168)
*
and that's what you get. You could change the rq_sizes array, but that's
tricky to set up...
It's a lot easier to use a RA81 instead. It's 450MB instead of the 150MB
the RD54 in the
example and gives plenty of room.
You could also use a RA80 instead. It's a little smaller than the RD54 at
120MB, but it
as a 20,000 block /usr instead of the kinda tiny 17,200 block area of the
RD54. The RA60
is also an option at 200MB with the same 10MB /usr.
Warner
P.S. Kudos to the anonymous DEC employee that drew all the pictures for
each of
the supported disks in dksizes.
Re: Ultrix-11
I just installed Ultrix-11 3.1 using the ultrix31.tap file from https://pdp-11.org.ru/files.pl?lang=en which is the location from the comments in Stephen's Machine Room video on YouTube that I think started this thread. It installed just fine, but just like the video, I ran out of space on /usr. How can I make a larger /usr partition? Is it possible to do this at installation time? There did not seem to be an option for this. Can it be done by using an additional disk? That would seem likely, but not what a system manager back in the 70's or 80's would expect to need to do, especially as there is a relatively large amount of space left to create /user1. I noted the options for installing software using soft links to other locations. Was that the preferred method when installing additional software? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers Peter Allan
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 19, 2021, at 4:37 PM, John Forecast via cctalk > wrote: > > >> On Aug 19, 2021, at 9:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> On 8/19/21 12:23 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:07 PM Bill Degnan wrote: >>>> pretty cool >>>> >>> Thanks! Looking at the boot source I figured out that I just needed to >>> build a non-generic kernel >>> to get rid of the load device prompt... I'd somehow omitted that during the >>> install... >> >> I always skip that during the install. Much safer to do it >> later when I am sure I have a stable system. Need to add >> serial devices and network device. I wonder if the DECNET >> daemon from Linux would back port to Ultrix-11? CLient side >> is provided, but no daemon that I am aware of. > > If by daemon you mean the kernel code supporting NSP and routing protocols > then, no, it would not be an easy back port, that code makes heavy use of > Linux-specific functions and capabilities. The user-level utilities would be > much simpler but you would need to copy over the DECnet header files and > implement the expected library routines (getnodebyname(), getobjent() etc). > > John. Does Linux follow the DECnet socket services of Ultrix, or are they different? I remember that Ultrix had socket operations matching the power of the DECnet application interface, stuff like connect data or packet-oriented data transmission. It also supported a basic stream service, which was mapped (somehow -- I'd like to find the details) onto the underlying DECnet packet service. I've been thinking it would be neat to have an httpd that answers DECnet connections (object number 80, of course). paul
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 19, 2021, at 9:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > On 8/19/21 12:23 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:07 PM Bill Degnan wrote: >>> pretty cool >>> >> Thanks! Looking at the boot source I figured out that I just needed to >> build a non-generic kernel >> to get rid of the load device prompt... I'd somehow omitted that during the >> install... > > I always skip that during the install. Much safer to do it > later when I am sure I have a stable system. Need to add > serial devices and network device. I wonder if the DECNET > daemon from Linux would back port to Ultrix-11? CLient side > is provided, but no daemon that I am aware of. If by daemon you mean the kernel code supporting NSP and routing protocols then, no, it would not be an easy back port, that code makes heavy use of Linux-specific functions and capabilities. The user-level utilities would be much simpler but you would need to copy over the DECnet header files and implement the expected library routines (getnodebyname(), getobjent() etc). John. > > bill >
Re: Ultrix-11
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:33 AM Bill Gunshannon wrote: > On 8/18/21 11:42 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: > > > > On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > >> On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has > > >>> complete > > >>> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes > > >>> > > >> > > >> It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 > > image that > > >> works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory > and > > >> two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any > > Ultrix-11 > > >> on real or simulated hardware. > > >> > > >> Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of > > 4M. Not > > >> sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially > > simple but > > >> I could provide that as well. > > >> > > >> I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do > > things like > > >> Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for > > Ultrix stuff. > > >> > > >> bill > > > > > > > > > Bill's file is at: > > > > > > http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/ > > <http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/> > > > > > > > So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet? > > > > (Other than me :-) > > > > > > Does this count? I named it bill because I wasn't sure which version it > > was :) > > And I did it from tape, not RX-50s and swapping 31 of them in/out with > > simh... And I couldn't get 11/73 to work (I think my simh has a > regression > > there), but 11/83 worked just fine. > > Interesting. In the last couple days I have done 11/73, 11/83 and > 11/44. All worked fine. > I'm using the latest from github, so maybe I've found a regression. > > > ULTRIX-11 System V3.1 (bill) > > > > login: root > > > > Welcome to the ULTRIX-11 System > > > > erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C > > bill# uname -a > > ULTRIX-11 bill 3 0 PDP-11/83 > > bill# df > > Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent > > node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on > > /dev/rd00 46543076157866%/ > > /dev/rd01 83027708 59493%/usr > > bill# > > > > test1# uname -a > ULTRIX-11 test1 3 0 PDP-11/44 > test1# df > Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent > node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on > /dev/ra00 46063080152667%/ > /dev/ra01 95982848675030%/usr > /dev/ra03 4230418773 414268 2%/user1 > /dev/ra17 4409413678 437263 1%/user2 > /dev/ra27 440941 2 440939 0%/user3 > /dev/ra37 440941 6 440935 0%/user4 > test1# dmesg > > Feb 14 09:00 > ... > > ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1 > > realmem = 3932160 > buffers = 25600 > clists = 1600 > usermem = 3772992 > maxumem = 212992 > > > > But I did something wrong... It prompts me for the load device on each > > reboot. > > Nothing wrong it does that. I don't think it goes away until after > you build a new custom kernel. You will need that for networking > anyway. Hope your good with overlays. :-) > > > > > > sim> boot rq0 > > > > Sizing Memory... > > > > Boot: rd(0,0)unix(CTRL/C will abort auto-boot) > > > > Load device (? for help, if none) < ht tm ts tk rx rl rc > ? tk > > > > rd(0,0)unix: > > > 14784+17024+8192+8000+8064+8000+8064+8128+8000+7808+7936+7936+7680+7360+1344 > > > > ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1 > > ... > > > > (and I think my simh is a bit wonky because it doesn't quite work: it > > hangs from time to time, but only after a reset) > > > > Mine has been stable so far. Doesn't really get unstable till you > add networking. :-) > > I am running on this: PDP-11 simulator V3.8-1 > &
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/19/21 12:23 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:07 PM Bill Degnan wrote: pretty cool Thanks! Looking at the boot source I figured out that I just needed to build a non-generic kernel to get rid of the load device prompt... I'd somehow omitted that during the install... I always skip that during the install. Much safer to do it later when I am sure I have a stable system. Need to add serial devices and network device. I wonder if the DECNET daemon from Linux would back port to Ultrix-11? CLient side is provided, but no daemon that I am aware of. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/18/21 11:42 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote:
>
>
> On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>> On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has
>>> complete
>>> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes
>>>
>>
>> It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50
image that
>> works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and
>> two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any
Ultrix-11
>> on real or simulated hardware.
>>
>> Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of
4M. Not
>> sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially
simple but
>> I could provide that as well.
>>
>> I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do
things like
>> Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for
Ultrix stuff.
>>
>> bill
>
>
> Bill's file is at:
>
> http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/
<http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/>
>
So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet?
(Other than me :-)
Does this count? I named it bill because I wasn't sure which version it
was :)
And I did it from tape, not RX-50s and swapping 31 of them in/out with
simh... And I couldn't get 11/73 to work (I think my simh has a regression
there), but 11/83 worked just fine.
Interesting. In the last couple days I have done 11/73, 11/83 and
11/44. All worked fine.
ULTRIX-11 System V3.1 (bill)
login: root
Welcome to the ULTRIX-11 System
erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C
bill# uname -a
ULTRIX-11 bill 3 0 PDP-11/83
bill# df
Filesystem total kbytes kbytes percent
node kbytes used free used Mounted on
/dev/rd00 4654 3076 1578 66% /
/dev/rd01 8302 7708 594 93% /usr
bill#
test1# uname -a
ULTRIX-11 test1 3 0 PDP-11/44
test1# df
Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent
node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on
/dev/ra00 46063080152667%/
/dev/ra01 95982848675030%/usr
/dev/ra03 4230418773 414268 2%/user1
/dev/ra17 4409413678 437263 1%/user2
/dev/ra27 440941 2 440939 0%/user3
/dev/ra37 440941 6 440935 0%/user4
test1# dmesg
Feb 14 09:00
...
ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1
realmem = 3932160
buffers = 25600
clists = 1600
usermem = 3772992
maxumem = 212992
But I did something wrong... It prompts me for the load device on each
reboot.
Nothing wrong it does that. I don't think it goes away until after
you build a new custom kernel. You will need that for networking
anyway. Hope your good with overlays. :-)
sim> boot rq0
Sizing Memory...
Boot: rd(0,0)unix (CTRL/C will abort auto-boot)
Load device (? for help, if none) < ht tm ts tk rx rl rc > ? tk
rd(0,0)unix:
14784+17024+8192+8000+8064+8000+8064+8128+8000+7808+7936+7936+7680+7360+1344
ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1
...
(and I think my simh is a bit wonky because it doesn't quite work: it
hangs from time to time, but only after a reset)
Mine has been stable so far. Doesn't really get unstable till you
add networking. :-)
I am running on this: PDP-11 simulator V3.8-1
Now that people have made me interested again I think it's time
to get the source loaded and look into what it takes to build
install kits on other media.
I never really did much with Ultrix-11 on SIMH, mostly on real
hardware. That's where I did all the testing when I first figured
out how to take the files from the archive and build a tape. The
original was TS02 but I later used Fred's setup to make the TK50.
Being as this is the only OS that can legally be used I would
expect more activity. First thing is to try and find my improved
date command that lets you set dates after 1999. :-)
Wish we had a list for Ultrix-11 specifically. Might be a lot of fun.
bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:07 PM Bill Degnan wrote: > pretty cool > Thanks! Looking at the boot source I figured out that I just needed to build a non-generic kernel to get rid of the load device prompt... I'd somehow omitted that during the install... Warner On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:42 PM Warner Losh via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >> > On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >> > >> On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has >> > >>> complete >> > >>> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image >> that >> > >> works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and >> > >> two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any >> Ultrix-11 >> > >> on real or simulated hardware. >> > >> >> > >> Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. >> Not >> > >> sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple >> but >> > >> I could provide that as well. >> > >> >> > >> I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things >> like >> > >> Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix >> > stuff. >> > >> >> > >> bill >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill's file is at: >> > > >> > > http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/ >> > > >> > >> > So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet? >> > >> > (Other than me :-) >> > >> >> Does this count? I named it bill because I wasn't sure which version it >> was >> :) >> And I did it from tape, not RX-50s and swapping 31 of them in/out with >> simh... And I couldn't get 11/73 to work (I think my simh has a regression >> there), but 11/83 worked just fine. >> >> ULTRIX-11 System V3.1 (bill) >> >> login: root >> >> Welcome to the ULTRIX-11 System >> >> erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C >> bill# uname -a >> ULTRIX-11 bill 3 0 PDP-11/83 >> bill# df >> Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent >>node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on >> /dev/rd00 46543076157866%/ >> /dev/rd01 83027708 59493%/usr >> bill# >> >> But I did something wrong... It prompts me for the load device on each >> reboot. >> >> sim> boot rq0 >> >> Sizing Memory... >> >> Boot: rd(0,0)unix(CTRL/C will abort auto-boot) >> >> Load device (? for help, if none) < ht tm ts tk rx rl rc > ? tk >> >> rd(0,0)unix: >> >> 14784+17024+8192+8000+8064+8000+8064+8128+8000+7808+7936+7936+7680+7360+1344 >> >> ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1 >> ... >> >> (and I think my simh is a bit wonky because it doesn't quite work: it >> hangs >> from time to time, but only after a reset) >> >> Warner >> >
Re: Ultrix-11
pretty cool On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:42 PM Warner Losh via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > >> On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has > > >>> complete > > >>> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes > > >>> > > >> > > >> It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that > > >> works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and > > >> two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 > > >> on real or simulated hardware. > > >> > > >> Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not > > >> sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple > but > > >> I could provide that as well. > > >> > > >> I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like > > >> Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix > > stuff. > > >> > > >> bill > > > > > > > > > Bill's file is at: > > > > > > http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/ > > > > > > > So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet? > > > > (Other than me :-) > > > > Does this count? I named it bill because I wasn't sure which version it was > :) > And I did it from tape, not RX-50s and swapping 31 of them in/out with > simh... And I couldn't get 11/73 to work (I think my simh has a regression > there), but 11/83 worked just fine. > > ULTRIX-11 System V3.1 (bill) > > login: root > > Welcome to the ULTRIX-11 System > > erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C > bill# uname -a > ULTRIX-11 bill 3 0 PDP-11/83 > bill# df > Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent >node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on > /dev/rd00 46543076157866%/ > /dev/rd01 83027708 59493%/usr > bill# > > But I did something wrong... It prompts me for the load device on each > reboot. > > sim> boot rq0 > > Sizing Memory... > > Boot: rd(0,0)unix(CTRL/C will abort auto-boot) > > Load device (? for help, if none) < ht tm ts tk rx rl rc > ? tk > > rd(0,0)unix: > > 14784+17024+8192+8000+8064+8000+8064+8128+8000+7808+7936+7936+7680+7360+1344 > > ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1 > ... > > (and I think my simh is a bit wonky because it doesn't quite work: it hangs > from time to time, but only after a reset) > > Warner >
Re: Ultrix-11
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > >> On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > >>> > >>> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has > >>> complete > >>> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes > >>> > >> > >> It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that > >> works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and > >> two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 > >> on real or simulated hardware. > >> > >> Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not > >> sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple but > >> I could provide that as well. > >> > >> I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like > >> Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix > stuff. > >> > >> bill > > > > > > Bill's file is at: > > > > http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/ > > > > So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet? > > (Other than me :-) > Does this count? I named it bill because I wasn't sure which version it was :) And I did it from tape, not RX-50s and swapping 31 of them in/out with simh... And I couldn't get 11/73 to work (I think my simh has a regression there), but 11/83 worked just fine. ULTRIX-11 System V3.1 (bill) login: root Welcome to the ULTRIX-11 System erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C bill# uname -a ULTRIX-11 bill 3 0 PDP-11/83 bill# df Filesystemtotalkbytes kbytes percent node kbytesusedfree usedMounted on /dev/rd00 46543076157866%/ /dev/rd01 83027708 59493%/usr bill# But I did something wrong... It prompts me for the load device on each reboot. sim> boot rq0 Sizing Memory... Boot: rd(0,0)unix(CTRL/C will abort auto-boot) Load device (? for help, if none) < ht tm ts tk rx rl rc > ? tk rd(0,0)unix: 14784+17024+8192+8000+8064+8000+8064+8128+8000+7808+7936+7936+7680+7360+1344 ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.1 ... (and I think my simh is a bit wonky because it doesn't quite work: it hangs from time to time, but only after a reset) Warner
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/16/21 2:55 PM, js--- via cctalk wrote: On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has complete instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 on real or simulated hardware. Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple but I could provide that as well. I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix stuff. bill Bill's file is at: http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/ So, anybody got a system running from that tape yet? (Other than me :-) bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/17/21 11:40 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:46 AM Dennis Grevenstein via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: Bill Gunshannon wrote: With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? Someone mentioned a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. Yea. I've not seen anything survive on any of the abandonware sites. But another way to ask: what is fixed between 2.0 and 3.1 that prompts Bill to ask me why I'd want 2.0 like it was nuts... As near as I can tell, it wasn't so much bug fixes (after all, Ultrix-11 is just V7M rebadged) as it was additional hardware support. But I suspect anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as far as 4.5. That seems likely, because AFAIR Ultrix-11 never got past 3.X. In any way I would like to point out that Ultrix-11 and Ultrix-32 are completely different: Ultrix-11 based on V7 (+addons) and Ultrix-32 based on 4.2BSD (+addons). Having looked at the sources to both and running diffs with tuhs, I can confirm this is the case. And ultrix-32 had different version numbers than ultrix-11. But the vax and mips versions shared the same sources as far as I can tell (though I don't know if it is common ancestor or operationally the same repo). I have looked on the web and many sites (not DEC) are calling the 4.x versions running on VAX and MIPS ULTRIX-11 instead of ULTRIX-32 which is what it actually was. Also, the addons to ultrix-11 include BSD networking. It has the feel of 2.9BSD with a more polished installer and sysgen (alien name in unix world, but common for DEC OSes). And it works quite well within the confines of the limited PDP-11 hardware. :-) bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 17/08/2021 19:39, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/ultrix-11/2.0/AA-X342B-TC_ULTRIX-11_SoftwTechDescr_1984.pdf says on p1-1 that "ULTRIX-11 V2.0 software is the second version of DIGITAL's 16-bit UNIX product. The first version was V7M-11 V1.0 software." Antonio -- Antonio Carlini anto...@acarlini.com
Re: Ultrix-11
I thought V7M and Ultrix were entirely diferent and unrelated things. At least on the Pro, DEC released a betal version of the one (which I tried when it came out) and then canceled it and replaced it by a release of the other. I forgot which came first, other than that the beta was really clunky. As in, a "vi" that didn't do real screen updates... paul > On Aug 17, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctech > wrote: > > images up under > http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip
Re: Ultrix-11
images up under http://bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/floppyimages/rx50/V7M-11-V1.0_6_USR_RX50-QJ083-H3.zip
Re: Ultrix-11
> Am 17.08.2021 um 17:40 schrieb Warner Losh : > > Having looked at the sources to both and running diffs with tuhs, I can > confirm this is the case. And ultrix-32 had different version numbers than > ultrix-11. But the vax and mips versions shared the same sources as far as I > can tell (though I don't know if it is common ancestor or operationally the > same repo). Ultrix-32 for RISC (=MIPS) was developed based on the VAX version, which was also Ultrix-32. DEC dropped the „-32“ with Ultrix 4. The DECstation 3100 came out in 1989. I don’t have sources for Ultrix-32 version 3.X, but Ultrix versions 4.X just share sources. It is clear that Ultrix/RISC added a few bits and pieces from MIPS, but it’s nothing that would prevent a common source tree. As far as I remember, the name „-32“ came from the first Ultrix release, which was „32m“ version 1.0 or something like that. „32“ meaning 32bit VAX and „m“ meaning „MicroVAX“. A bunch of RX50 floppy images from 1984 (or 85?) have been preserved, I think… AFAIR the first Ultrix-32 only ran on the MicroVAX I. Dennis
Re: Ultrix-11
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:46 AM Dennis Grevenstein via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > > With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? Someone mentioned > > a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, > > but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. Yea. I've not seen anything survive on any of the abandonware sites. But another way to ask: what is fixed between 2.0 and 3.1 that prompts Bill to ask me why I'd want 2.0 like it was nuts... But I suspect > > anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as > > far as 4.5. > > That seems likely, because AFAIR Ultrix-11 never got past 3.X. > In any way I would like to point out that Ultrix-11 and Ultrix-32 are > completely different: Ultrix-11 based on V7 (+addons) and Ultrix-32 > based on 4.2BSD (+addons). > Having looked at the sources to both and running diffs with tuhs, I can confirm this is the case. And ultrix-32 had different version numbers than ultrix-11. But the vax and mips versions shared the same sources as far as I can tell (though I don't know if it is common ancestor or operationally the same repo). Also, the addons to ultrix-11 include BSD networking. It has the feel of 2.9BSD with a more polished installer and sysgen (alien name in unix world, but common for DEC OSes). Warner I actually still have Ultrix-32 3.1 running on a DECstation. It really > is nothing like running Ultrix-11 3.1, which I did many years ago. > > Dennis >
Re: Ultrix-11
Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? Someone mentioned > a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, > but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. But I suspect > anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as > far as 4.5. That seems likely, because AFAIR Ultrix-11 never got past 3.X. In any way I would like to point out that Ultrix-11 and Ultrix-32 are completely different: Ultrix-11 based on V7 (+addons) and Ultrix-32 based on 4.2BSD (+addons). I actually still have Ultrix-32 3.1 running on a DECstation. It really is nothing like running Ultrix-11 3.1, which I did many years ago. Dennis
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/15/2021 10:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has complete instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 on real or simulated hardware. Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple but I could provide that as well. I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix stuff. bill Bill's file is at: http://www.cimmeri.com/js/download/ultrix-11/
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 9:29 AM Warner Losh via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 9:11 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 8/15/21 12:53 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < > > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a > couple > > >> > > > > > > I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out > in > > > the interwebs... > > > > > > Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? > I don't have a proper V2 distribution, but I did manage to compile it from the sources that are flying around and create a working installation. I could not figure out how to create installation media though, the process seems to require some kind of "prototype disk" which I don't have and didn't have the motivation to reverse engineer. Somebody (not me) helpfully uploaded it to archive.org: https://archive.org/details/vax-ultrix-2.0.tar > > > > > > Warner > > > > > > > > > With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? > > > Historical research. > > Warner > > Someone mentioned > > a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, > > but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. But I suspect > > anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as > > far as 4.5. > > > > bill > > > > >
Re: Ultrix-11
If you can't get it to transfer, I can give you a temporary account on filedump.glitchwrks.com to upload it. Thanks, Jonathan ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, August 15th, 2021 at 18:23, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 8/15/21 11:44 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 8/15/21 8:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > > > > It's just shy of 4M. Not > > > > > > sure if it could be emailed. > > > > If your system will accept something that big, I can receive it. > > > > It isn't uncommon anymore for mail clients to accept 10mb attachments > > > > thanks to HTML mail bloat. > > I use Gmail. Don't know if they have a limit or not. Want me to > > try to email it to you? > > bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/15/21 11:44 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 8/15/21 8:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: It's just shy of 4M. Not sure if it could be emailed. If your system will accept something that big, I can receive it. It isn't uncommon anymore for mail clients to accept 10mb attachments thanks to HTML mail bloat. I use Gmail. Don't know if they have a limit or not. Want me to try to email it to you? bill
Re: Ultrix-11
> On Aug 15, 2021, at 10:08, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:36 PM Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:08 PM Douglas Taylor >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < >>>> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 >>>>> 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. >>>>> It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through >>>>> the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. >>>>> I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the >>>>> video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. >>>>> Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape >>>>> image. >>>>> Anyone know where the tape image is located? >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ >>>> has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot >>>> tape (or its files) that you are looking for. >>>> >>>> Warner >>>> >>>> I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It >>>> is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that >>>> tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience. >>>> >>> >>> There are several prep programs that take the tape files and make a .tap >>> file. >>> >> Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has complete >> instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes > > It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that > works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and > two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 > on real or simulated hardware. > > Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not > sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple but > I could provide that as well. > > I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like > Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix stuff. > > bill > Would presumably be a lot smaller gzip’d?
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 9:11 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 8/15/21 12:53 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple > >> > > > > I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out in > > the interwebs... > > > > Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? > > > > Warner > > > > > With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? Historical research. Warner Someone mentioned > a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, > but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. But I suspect > anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as > far as 4.5. > > bill > >
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/15/21 8:08 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: It's just shy of 4M. Not sure if it could be emailed. If your system will accept something that big, I can receive it. It isn't uncommon anymore for mail clients to accept 10mb attachments thanks to HTML mail bloat.
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/15/21 12:53 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out in the interwebs... Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? Warner With 3.1 available why would you want to run 2.0? Someone mentioned a 4.0. I don't remember there ever being anything after 3.1 (promised, but never saw it delivered) Would be fun to look at. But I suspect anything beginning with 4 is actually Ultrix-32 which I think went as far as 4.5. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/15/21 12:45 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:36 PM Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:08 PM Douglas Taylor wrote: On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape image. Anyone know where the tape image is located? https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot tape (or its files) that you are looking for. Warner I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience. There are several prep programs that take the tape files and make a .tap file. Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has complete instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes It took a day because I wanted to test it but I have a TK50 image that works with SIMH. I did an install on an 11/73 with 3M of memory and two RD54's. Worked fine. It's been a while since I did any Ultrix-11 on real or simulated hardware. Have no idea how to get this tape to anyone. It's just shy of 4M. Not sure if it could be emailed. The SIMH ini file is trivially simple but I could provide that as well. I have nowhere I could put it up for download. I don't do things like Google Drive. Maybe we need a GITHUB site or something for Ultrix stuff. bill
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/14/2021 11:53 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out in the interwebs... Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? Warner FYI, I have Images of the RX50 floppies for V7M. Al - let me know if you want them, and I will put them up for you to snag - 33 floppies worth. I have *not* tried to install from them. I also have *part* of version 1 of Ultrix 32 (Vax) - but only the first tape. (Version 1.1 is up on Bitsavers). If anyone wants it let me know. It is in AWS format, but it is trivial to make an image suitable for use with SimH. ID: CC0003 EXTERNAL-LABEL: BB-BG41A-BE DATE: 2000/07/23 SOURCE: SOURCE-DATE: DENSITY: 1600 BPI LABEL: NL DESCRIPTION: ULTRIX-32 V1 BIN 16MT9 1/2 FILE-COUNT: 5 PC-FILE-COUNT: 2 [FILE] NAME: FORMAT: 512 Byte Blocks ERRORS: NONE NAME: FORMAT: 10240 Byte Blocks ERRORS: NONE NAME: FORMAT: 10240 Byte Blocks ERRORS: NONE NAME: FORMAT: 10240 Byte Blocks ERRORS: NONE NAME: FORMAT: 10240 Byte Blocks ERRORS: NONE [PC-FILE] FILENAME: ultrix.aws FORMAT: AWS Tape image of tape JRJ
Re: Ultrix-11
On 2021-08-14 12:18, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: > I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 > 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. > It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through > the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. > I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the > video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. > Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape > image. > Anyone know where the tape image is located? The "install tape" was distributed as a series of files which have to be written to a real tape with different block sizes. So if you have a directory with more than one .tap file, look for a shell script to write those to a tape drive ... There you will see, which file made the real boot tape ...
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/14/21 9:55 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: Of course Al has it. I have lots of things, unfortunately there are lots of other things out on the interwebs that I have no idea exist.
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:53 PM Warner Losh wrote: n Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple >> > > I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out in > the interwebs... > > Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? > Doh! No sooner did I send this that I found http://www.bitsavers.org/bits/DEC/pdp11/magtapes/ultrix-11/BB-X302B-BC_ULTRIX-11_V2_16USR_BIN_1984.tap.gz so never mind. Of course Al has it. Warner
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM jim stephens via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple > I did some quick searching and couldn't find a Ultrix-11 V2 image out in the interwebs... Anybody have better google fu than me that can hook me up? Warner
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:36 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:08 PM Douglas Taylor > wrote: > >> On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 >>> 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. >>> It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through >>> the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. >>> I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the >>> video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. >>> Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape >>> image. >>> Anyone know where the tape image is located? >>> >> >> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ >> has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot >> tape (or its files) that you are looking for. >> >> Warner >> >> I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It >> is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that >> tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience. >> > > There are several prep programs that take the tape files and make a .tap > file. > Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-11/Fred-Ultrix3 in the tuhs archive has complete instructions as well as a program to build the ultrix tapes Warner > Warner > >>
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/14/2021 1:36 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:08 PM Douglas Taylor wrote: On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape image. Anyone know where the tape image is located? https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot tape (or its files) that you are looking for. Warner I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience. There are several prep programs that take the tape files and make a .tap file. Warner I unzipped all the cctalk images I have and in the 2000 time frame there's a discussion about running 3.x version and upgrading to 4.x. Fun to see digression into how Netscape is having trouble with java extensions to the Altavista search engine they were looking for image info with. This is the closest to the subject I found. No references to any tape images of the 3.x version. From July 2008 archive (I think Jay has these online somewhere back that far) From richardlynch3 at tx.rr.com Wed Jul 23 20:44:41 2008 From: richardlynch3 at tx.rr.com (Richard Lynch) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:44:41 -0500 Subject: ultrix on simh On 7/23/08 7:09 AM, "Tom Manos" wrote: > Hi, > I'm running Ultrix V2 on Simh quite happily today and have a couple of goals > I don't know how to accomplish. I'm hoping someone here can help. ... snip ... I have an image of an Ultrix V3.1 upgrade tape I can send if you want to try it. You should be able to mount it as a tape in the simh vax emulator and boot it. If you want to go a little further, I also have V4.x images. Richard Lynch Thanks Jim
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:08 PM Douglas Taylor wrote: > On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 >> 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. >> It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through >> the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. >> I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the >> video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. >> Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape >> image. >> Anyone know where the tape image is located? >> > > https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ > has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot > tape (or its files) that you are looking for. > > Warner > > I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It > is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that > tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience. > There are several prep programs that take the tape files and make a .tap file. Warner >
Re: Ultrix-11
On 8/14/2021 1:54 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. Bitsavers and tuhs.org <http://tuhs.org> have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape image. Anyone know where the tape image is located? https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ <https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/> has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot tape (or its files) that you are looking for. Warner I took a look at that file and don't exactly know what to do with it. It is not a bootable image of a tape, but rather the files that are on that tape. Have to do some more digging. Its a learning experience.
Re: Ultrix-11
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Douglas Taylor via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 > 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. > It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through > the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. > I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the > video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. > Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape > image. > Anyone know where the tape image is located? > https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/DEC/Ultrix-3.1/ has ultrix-3.1-bootape.tar.gz and seems to be, at first blush, the boot tape (or its files) that you are looking for. Warner
Ultrix-11
I ran into a YouTube video, that it is 5 years old, titled "Ultrix-11 3.1 on an emulated PDP-11/73" and I found it very interesting. It shows installation of Ultrix-11 under SIMH. The fellow steps through the installation process and appears to be quite knowable. I wanted to replicate it but couldn't locate the *.tap file used in the video that was an image of the bootable TK50 distribution. Bitsavers and tuhs.org have Ultrix-11 files, but not the bootable tape image. Anyone know where the tape image is located? Doug
