From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wkt@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:27:36 +1100 (EST) Subject: Some nice progress with hardware and Ultrix in the PUPS archive In-Reply-To: <199812041031.PAA09422@harrier.Uznet.NET> from Michael Sokolov at "Dec 4, 98 10:31:01 am" Message-ID: <199812050727.SAA04411@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au> In article by Michael Sokolov: > As I was thinking about how else can I get correctly written Ultrix > tapes, the following idea sneaked into my mind. The PUPS archive already > contains PDP-11 Ultrix. How about VAX Ultrix? With Warren's permission, I > would be more than happy to upload my VAX Ultrix tape images (I have them > sitting as files on my DOS disk). Once that is done, would someone > volunteer to download them, write them to two TK50 cartridges, and send > them to me? TIA for any help. We have to be careful with 3rd party UNIXes. We would have to get approval from DEC (or whoever they are) to allow us to add their product into the archive. I did this with V7M and the later Ultrix-11s before DEC got bought out. Warren Received: (from major at localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA04900 for pups-liszt; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:36:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (trailing-edge.wdn.com [198.232.144.27]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA04895 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:36:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 9:33:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 9:33:16 -0500 From: Tim Shoppa To: msokolov at harrier.Uznet.NET CC: PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU Message-Id: <981205093316.2de002c3 at trailing-edge.com> Subject: Re: System Industries MSCP disk controller problem Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I have just tried configuring the board as you have suggested and it >works! Thanks! You have saved the Project! "It has to be simple or I can't do it :-)". In this case (like just about all), it's a matter of getting rid of unknowns. > When I tried starting WOMBAT, it also worked. However, there are tons of >configuration parameters you can set there. Oh yeah - the Webster controllers are wonderfully configurable. It's incredibly useful, as one physical disk can be partitioned up many ways into "virtual" MSCP units - especially useful for OS's which don't deal well with large units (or when it's desirable to have many different versions of many different OS's on the same disk.) >Do you have a full manual for this controller? Would you mind sending me a >xerox copy? Sure, for the cost of copying and postage. Or I'd trade you for some surplus of yours. > What about VAXen? Can you still call 1-800-DIGITAL with a _BIG_ credit >card in hand and order a VAX? Yep - high end 3100 and 4000 units are still available. (It looks like someone has already pointed you towards the Emulex QD21 and QT13 docs available around the net.) > And while we are at it, I have a question about 9-track tape transports >and controllers in general. I often hear about something called Pertec. >What is it? Is it some kind of standard interface that nearly all tape >transports use? Nearly all non-SCSI, non-proprietary interface tape drives will have either (or both) Pertec formatted and Pertec unformatted interfaces. Pertec unformatted drives have three cables; one carries read data, another carries write data, and the third carries control signals. It's a rather low-level interface - the controller tells the drive to go forward, then reads or writes data, with the controller responsible for all the timing. The controller gets to do the nitty-gritty work of repositioning and spacing forward and backward over tape marks. Pertec formatted drives have two 50-pin cables. It's a higher-level interface, where the "formatter" does a lot of the nitty-gritty work, and the controller in the backplane just has to spew out data bytes (or take them in). Many times you'll see a Pertec unformatted drive with a formatter bolted onto it with two 50-pin cables coming out. (In most cases, a formatter could control multiple physical drives.) Other times you'll find "embedded formatter" drives, where there is no 3-cable unformatted interface lurking inside. > It is what this QT13 controller is for? (It has 2 50-lead >connectors.) Yep, Pertec formatted. The QT13 is nice because it'll emulate either MU: or MS:-type devices. > I remember at CWRU there was a very neat-looking tape >transport called Cipher. It looked EXACTLY like DEC TS05, suggesting that >it's what the TS05 really is. Yep, a TS05 is a rebadged Cipher F880 (with some slightly-different firmware). > That one also had a two-50-lead-cables >interface as far as I could tell (it was disconnected). It also appeared to >be dual-ported. It probably had 4 50-pin edge connectors, so that multiple drives could be chained on the same Pertec-formatted-bus. (There are terminators at each end of the bus, much like SCSI.) There's provisions for at least 4 formatters per bus, with each formatter potentially running multiple drives. > Does this mean that DEC also used this Pertec interface? Yep. Actually, the DEC TS05/TSV05/TU80 controllers are rebadged Dilog boards (again, with slightly different firmware - for instance a DEC TU80 controller will only work with TU80 drives or their CDC equivalent, the Keystone.) >Then why are there different DEC controllers for different DEC 9-track tape >transports (TSV05 for TS05, KLESI for TU81+, etc.)? If they were all Pertec >one controller would fit all, wouldn't it? Or is that some DEC 9-track tape >hardware uses Pertec and other DEC hardware doesn't? At the guts of most DEC tape drives, you will often find either a Pertec formatted or unformatted interface. TU80's and TS(V)05's are simple Pertec formatted interfaces. Other times they convert to some other interface (Massbus, LESI, etc.) before the cables come out to the "real world". > Moving on to the next and last unidentified flying board. This one is a >total mystery. The board is labeled "SIGMA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC." and >"ASSY NO 400135 REV A". There are NO microprocessors, ROMs, or any other >LSI chips on the board, only SSI/MSI chips, resistors, and capacitors. It's >a dual-height board. It has 3 8-switch packs. There is one 40-lead shrouded >header connector on the board, and a straight 40-lead ribbon cable connects >it to a bulkhead which has a female 37-lead D-sub connector on the outside. >Any ideas on what in the world is this? Any chance it's a simple parallel I/O? Could also be the bus interface for a Sigma and/or DSD MFM drive controller (if so, it probably emulates RL02's). The assembly number sounds vaguely DSD-like. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa at trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927 Received: (from major at localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA04942 for pups-liszt; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:44:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (trailing-edge.wdn.com [198.232.144.27]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA04937 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:44:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 9:42:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 9:42:42 -0500 From: Tim Shoppa To: PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU Message-Id: <981205094242.2de002c3 at trailing-edge.com> Subject: Re: Some nice progress with hardware and Ultrix in the PUPS archive Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > As I was thinking about how else can I get correctly written Ultrix >tapes, the following idea sneaked into my mind. The PUPS archive already >contains PDP-11 Ultrix. How about VAX Ultrix? As Warren pointed out, there might be a problem with putting such tapes on the PUPS archive. I'd be glad to run off TK50's from images for you, though I think your earlier idea, about installing from the miniroot image that's commonly put on 4.2- and 4.3BSD derived distributions, is a *far* better idea as it avoids using a TK50 tape drive at all. It's not that tape copies are bad ideas - it's just that TK50's are so slow. If you were coming from 9-track or DLT or something fast, that wouldn't be so bad. If you can get just about any OS running on your Q-bus machine, under any CPU - i.e. NetBSD, RT-11, 2.11BSD, RSX, whatever you might have - then you can just write the miniroot straight to a "scratch" disk. You can also write the root dump and tar savesets straight to another scratch disk, in "raw" format, if you desire. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa at trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927