[9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[Gabriel Diaz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

Hello

I saw this thread

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.plan9/browse_frm/thread/4913c4288c457507/b82195ebedce5a65?tvc=1&q=bootalphapc#b82195ebedce5a65

And I'm having the same problem with an AlphaServer 1000A 4/266.

Trying to boot from network got this error:

halt code = 2
kernel stack not valid halt
PC = 0

The machine has OpenVMS 7.3 wokring with no problems (others than being vms.
. .)

Any tips to get this working would be appreciated :-)

I'm using the configuration Andrey posted on the list time ago.

Thank you very much,

Gabi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 789 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[geoff]

As I understand it, you need to have the Digital Unix PAL code (SRM)
installed to run Plan 9.  I don't know if it can have SRM and the VMS
PAL code (ARC?) installed simultaneously.

Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[Moritz Kiese]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Dan Cross wrote:

[snip]

> I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
> generally available.  And I certainly believe that a lot of the development
> work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the Alpha

Sort of. First development kits (ADU) where a rather large Alpha box with
one of the bigger DECStations (5000 ?) as I/O frontend (connected via
Turbochannel IIRC). Lots of the OSF/1 development took place on these
boxen...

++mbk

Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> Yes, there was Ultrix on the 11.  I believe you can download it....

No thanks.

> Ultrix was a succession of different systems, starting on the PDP-11
> but moving to the VAX and eventually MIPS.

 From 7th Edition, 4.1, or ???  I don't have the poster handy.  What
I recall of Ultrix 1.0 said it was 4.2BSD plus stuff (on the 785 at
least).

> I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
> generally available.  And I certainly believe that a lot of the
> development
> work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the
> Alpha
> was ready, but I don't ever recall it being a commercial offering from
> DEC.  Even after the Alpha was released, if you bought a MIPS or
> VAX-based
> machine from DEC, the only Unix offered was Ultrix.
>
> Maybe if you were one of those special customers you could get them to
> give you OSF for MIPS, but I never ranked that high.  :-)

We were hit with VAX-based workstations, early MIPS-based
workstations, and the new Sun Sparc pizza boxes, all at the same
time.  It was very confusing.  It was also a lot more entertaining
than chasing the generic foo86 hardware dragons that live today.

> Oh, Ultrix was a pain to administer, especially after DEC dropped
> support
> for it.

How so?  Back then it was 4.2BSD + tools-to-be-ignored.  You didn't
actually use the 'admin tools', did you?!?  I fell in love with AIX
when I discovered the switch that made it convert the boot files from
SYSV to /etc/rc.*  As I admin machines with /bin/ed that same crowd
is still trying to hack XML into vi.

--lyndon

Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[Dan Cross]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 08:29:42PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >- In the begining (well once Olsen got over his anti-UNIX thing),
> >there
> >was ULTRIX on the 11, the VAX and MIPS.
>
> On the /11?  Ultrix seemed very VM-centric. (I.e. wanting post-11
> TLBs and such.)

Yes, there was Ultrix on the 11.  I believe you can download it....
Ultrix was a succession of different systems, starting on the PDP-11
but moving to the VAX and eventually MIPS.

> >- When DEC decided to swich from ULTRIX to OSF/1, it started its
> >development on MIPS.
> >- To what extent OSF/1 on MIPS was seen in the wild is not clear.
> >Claims range from, it was never officially released to, support for MIPS
> >existed in the source tree for several versions.

I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
generally available.  And I certainly believe that a lot of the development
work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the Alpha
was ready, but I don't ever recall it being a commercial offering from
DEC.  Even after the Alpha was released, if you bought a MIPS or VAX-based
machine from DEC, the only Unix offered was Ultrix.

Maybe if you were one of those special customers you could get them to
give you OSF for MIPS, but I never ranked that high.  :-)

> My hazy recollections of the first MIPS workstations involved Ultrix.
> (1.1?)  No OSF until ...

That's right.

> I think Tru64 pre-dated Compaq.  Nothing much changed between OSF/DUX/
> Tru (from the standpoint of someone who had to keep reasonably large
> apps running throughout).

Nothing much changed, but I'm pretty sure the Tru64 name came after the
Compaq buy-out.  The name Digial Unix didn't fly anymore since they didn't
keep the Digital name (though, if I recall, in the original buy-out
agreement they said they would).  For a while, when you bought a Compaq
Alpha, it came with the D|I|G|I|T|A|L logo still on the front-panel; I
guess branding wasn't so important as using back-inventory of parts.

> Of all the commercial Unixen of the era, the Ultrix follow-on
> variants were the least painful to deal with.  And the DEC MIPS-
> derived C compiler kicked ass when it came to spitting out
> grandmother-guilt-fed diagnostics :-)  (Was it DEC or MIPS who were
> responsible for the Spanish Inquisition error messages?  While noisy,
> the verbiage shortened a lot of other conversations :-)

Oh, Ultrix was a pain to administer, especially after DEC dropped support
for it.  I didn't especially like the compiler for it, either, though I
have a vague recollection that it had good diagnostics.  I don't think it
was fully ANSI C89 compliant, though, and other things in the OS left a
lot to be desired.  The monicker Uglix wasn't all together inappropriate.

That said, I still have a MIPS-based Ultrix machine somewhere in storage.
I should dig it out and see if it still boots.... (and if I still have
any data on it!).

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> - In the begining (well once Olsen got over his anti-UNIX thing),
> there
> was ULTRIX on the 11, the VAX and MIPS.

On the /11?  Ultrix seemed very VM-centric. (I.e. wanting post-11
TLBs and such.)

> - When DEC decided to swich from ULTRIX to OSF/1, it started its
> development on MIPS.
> - To what extent OSF/1 on MIPS was seen in the wild is not clear.
> Claims
> range from, it was never officially released to, support for MIPS
> existed
> in the source tree for several versions.

My hazy recollections of the first MIPS workstations involved Ultrix.
(1.1?)  No OSF until ...

> - When Alpha was released, OSF/1 was the UNIX for it.
> - When OSF (at least as an OS purveyor) imploded, DEC changed
> the name to Digital UNIX.
> - When the farm was sold to Compaq, it was again renamed to Tru64.

I think Tru64 pre-dated Compaq.  Nothing much changed between OSF/DUX/
Tru (from the standpoint of someone who had to keep reasonably large
apps running throughout).

Of all the commercial Unixen of the era, the Ultrix follow-on
variants were the least painful to deal with.  And the DEC MIPS-
derived C compiler kicked ass when it came to spitting out
grandmother-guilt-fed diagnostics :-)  (Was it DEC or MIPS who were
responsible for the Spanish Inquisition error messages?  While noisy,
the verbiage shortened a lot of other conversations :-)

--lyndon