Some nice progress with hardware and Ultrix in the PUPS archive

[msokolov@harrier.Uznet.NET (Michael Sokolov)]

   Dear Tim,
   
   You write:
> 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.
   
   I will need to boot from a tape at some point in any case. I have to
boot from SOMETHING. Since none of the disks in this machine is bootable, I
have to boot either from a tape or over the network. Since the only two
computers in my apartment are the VAX in question and my DOS machine,
netbooting is not an option. Well, I could attach another disk to the PC,
download FreeBSD, and install it, but this is _WAY_ too much pain. Also
there is no guarantee of success with this approach, since there are all
kinds of traps waiting to catch me. The spare disk I'm talking about may
turn out to be toast, FreeBSD may not like something about this PC, the
DELQA in the VAX may turn out broken, etc., etc., etc. OTOH, the labor
investment in just trying it out is enormous (this PC has a VERY special
configuration, and adding another disk may turn out to be a royal pita,
plus downloading FreeBSD or some other PeeCee UNIX clone over my 14400 BPS
modem is going to be a nightmare). On the other hand, I know that the TK50
boot path is working, since I have been able to boot from some VMSish tape
(see my previous messages), thus all I need is a good Ultrix tape.
   
   Another friendly PUPS member has promised to send me copies of his
Ultrix tapes, so hopefully I'll get something going.
   
> 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.
   
   Are 9-track tapes faster than TK50s? In addition to the TK50 I also have
the CDC Keystone and the QT13 which seems to work after all, but I
_STRONGLY_ doubt that it's going to be any easier. This big beast is very
dirty, it has been exposed to a little rain, and it has been dropped on
concrete pavement a couple times, so before I even try plugging it in, I
would have to perform a very careful cleaning and inspection procedure, and
I currently don't have anywhere near the resources and knowledge needed for
that operation.
   
> 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.
   
   Again, regardless of what approach I take, I'll need to boot from some
device first. See above.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Cellular phone: 216-217-2579
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: msokolov at harrier.Uznet.NET


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA13664
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 03:51:29 +1100 (EST)
Received: from harrier.Uznet.NET (harrier.ml.org [193.220.92.194])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA13659
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 03:51:04 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dosdev (pm8-105.dial.qual.net [205.212.2.105])
	by harrier.Uznet.NET (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA15637
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:50:03 +0500
Message-Id: <199812071650.VAA15637 at harrier.Uznet.NET>
From: Michael Sokolov <msokolov@harrier.Uznet.NET>
Date: 7 Dec 1998   16:49:46 GMT
To: pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: 9-track tape interfaces
Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

   Dear Tim,
   
   Your explanation of 9-track tape interfaces is extremely helpful!
Thanks! This area has always been a huge gap in my hardware knowledge.
   
   What I still don't understand is how do all these interfaces handle the
issue of recording density (800 BPI vs. 1600 BPI vs. 6250 BPI). You are
saying that the Pertec unformatted interface is very low-level. Do you mean
that it gives the controller the raw stream from the heads without trying
to separate data and clock bits? It is my understanding (please correct me
if I'm wrong) that the difference between 1600 and 6250 BPI is the data
encoding (PE vs. GCR) and that the actual magnetic density (flux
transitions per inch) is the same. If so, does this mean that a Pertec
unformatted transport can be made 1600 or 6250 BPI at the formatter's
discretion without the transport knowing or caring about the density? I
mean, is it like the ST-506/412 MFM vs. ST-506/412 RLL thing?
   
   And how does the Pertec formatted interface address this issue? In this
case the controller has to tell the transport what density it wants with
the transport being able to accept or deny the request depending on its
capabilities, right?
   
   You write:
> Yep, Pertec formatted.  The QT13 is nice because it'll emulate
> either MU: or MS:-type devices.
   
   This brings me to the following question. Assuming that the Pertec
formatted interface does carry explicit density control information, which
software interface would be a better choice in terms of density control,
TS-11 or TMSCP? It is my understanding that the original UNIBUS TS-11 is a
formatter for Pertec unformatted transports that supports 1600 BPI only,
right? If so, the TS-11 interface doesn't give the OS any control over the
density, does it? If so, what density does the QT13 choose in this mode?
And what about TMSCP? How much control does it give to the OS in terms of
density selection?
   
> Yep, a TS05 is a rebadged Cipher F880 (with some slightly-different
> firmware).
   
   And where does it stand density-wise? According to DEC, TS05 is a 1600
BPI only transport, and as far as I can remember, the Cipher at CWRU had
"1600 BPI" printed on the back somewhere. However, it had a switch on the
front panel labeled "HI DEN" or something like that. What the hell is this?
According to DEC docs, on TS05 this switch is labeled "ENTER" and the docs
call it "reserved".
   
> It probably had 4 50-pin edge connectors [...]
   
   Yes.
   
> [...] 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.
   
   Huh! I have never thought about it this way.
   
> (again, with slightly different firmware - for instance a DEC TU80
> controller
> will only work with TU80 drives or their CDC equivalent, the Keystone.)
   
   CDC Keystone is exactly what I have here. The interface coming out of
the (incredibly huge) cabinet is Pertec formatted. Does it have a Pertec
unformatted interface lurking inside or not? Which densities does it
support?
   
> 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".
   
   Hmm, the only DEC tape transport with LESI I know of is TU81+. Are there
any others? And what about that plus? Has there ever been a TU81 without
the plus? My manuals are at my main VAX farm from which I'm currently away,
but I remember the picture of the TU81+ in there looked similar to the
Keystone I have here. Since you say above that TU80 is Keystone in
disguise, does it mean that TU80, TU81, and TU81+ are all the same beast
with different interface converters tacked on?
   
   And what is LESI anyway? I have heard somewhere that the KLESI
controller can drive more than just a TU81+, so is LESI actually more than
just a tape interface?
   
   Oh, what about that leading edge strobe vs. trailing edge strobe? Your
vmsnet.pdp11 posting with the QT13 switch settings says that Kennedy 9300
uses trailing edge strobe while all others use leading edge strobe. Mine,
however, is set for trailing edge strobe, and it was connected to the
Keystone. Does this mean that the Keystone and Kennedy 9300 are the same
beast, or is it simply that the 9300 is not the only transport using
trailing edge strobe?
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Cellular phone: 216-217-2579
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: msokolov at harrier.Uznet.NET


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA13678
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 03:51:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from harrier.Uznet.NET (harrier.ml.org [193.220.92.194])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA13671
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 03:51:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dosdev (pm8-105.dial.qual.net [205.212.2.105])
	by harrier.Uznet.NET (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA15642
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:51:19 +0500
Message-Id: <199812071651.VAA15642 at harrier.Uznet.NET>
From: Michael Sokolov <msokolov@harrier.Uznet.NET>
Date: 7 Dec 1998   16:51:09 GMT
To: pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Sigma unidentified flying board
Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

   Dear Tim,
   
   You write:
> 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.
   
   From looking at the board I see that the BDMGI and BDMGO fingers are
simply shorted and not connected to any circuitry. This means that the
board is non-DMA, right? If so, it can't emulate RL-11 or any other DEC
disk controller because they are all DMA, right? The BIAKI and BIAKO
fingers ARE connected to some circuitry, though, so at least this board
interrupts, right?
   
   And what's DSD? What MFM controller are you referring to? The "SIGMA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC." label and the assembly number are etched, not
silk-screened, stamped, or stickered, so it suggests that Sigma is the
original designer.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Cellular phone: 216-217-2579
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: msokolov at harrier.Uznet.NET


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA14057
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 05:32:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail.calweb.com (mail.calweb.com [208.131.56.12])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA14052
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 05:32:00 +1100 (EST)
Received:  by mail.calweb.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA09365
	for <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-SMTP: helo rgc from rickgc at calweb.com server @12.22.0.83 ip 12.22.0.83
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981207104119.00926100 at pop.calweb.com>
X-Sender: rickgc at pop.calweb.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:41:59 -0800
To: pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (Unix Heritage Society)
From: Rick Copeland <rickgc@calweb.com>
Subject: Rugged 1182
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

Dear PUPS list,

I recently picked up a rack mounted computer that is called a "Rugged
11/82".  One individual I know has suggested that it is a pdp 11/82 is a
ruggedized box.  Has anyone on this list seen one of these.  Is there any
software in the PUPS archive that might run on one of these?

Sincerely,

Rick Copeland

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA14248
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 05:53:26 +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 FAA14243
	for <PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 05:53:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU;
          Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:53:01 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:53:01 -0500
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA@trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS at MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU
Message-Id: <981207135301.2f0000e2 at trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: Rugged 1182
Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

>I recently picked up a rack mounted computer that is called a "Rugged
>11/82".  One individual I know has suggested that it is a pdp 11/82 is a
>ruggedized box.  Has anyone on this list seen one of these.

I have seen ruggedized 11/83's, as well as "Industrial 11/83"'s, but
it's not clear yet exactly what you have.  The obvious solution
is to look inside and see what Q-bus and/or Unibus boards are present.

>  Is there any
>software in the PUPS archive that might run on one of these?

Some ruggedized PDP-11 systems didn't have a real Q-bus or Unibus backplane
at all, making it very difficult (if not impossible) to use them
with a standard disk controller.  That's why it's vital that you figure
out what exactly is in your machine.

Assuming that the guts are indeed a Q-bus or Unibus KDJ-based CPU,
you'll be able to run 2.11BSD once you get a compatible disk, load,
and console system up and going on it.

-- 
 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 GAA14657
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:42:52 +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 GAA14652
	for <PUPS at MINNIE.CS.adfa.edu.AU>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:42:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS at MINNIE.CS.adfa.edu.AU;
          Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:42:28 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:42:28 -0500
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA@trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Message-Id: <981207144228.2f0000e2 at trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: 9-track tape interfaces
Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

>   Are 9-track tapes faster than TK50s? 

In every reasonable case that I know of, yes.

>In addition to the TK50 I also have
>the CDC Keystone and the QT13 which seems to work after all, but I
>_STRONGLY_ doubt that it's going to be any easier. This big beast is very
>dirty, it has been exposed to a little rain, and it has been dropped on
>concrete pavement a couple times, so before I even try plugging it in, I
>would have to perform a very careful cleaning and inspection procedure, and
>I currently don't have anywhere near the resources and knowledge needed for
>that operation.

You're lucky - there's an incredible scarcity of moving parts on
a TU80/CDC Keystone: two reel motors and a blower are all you've
got.  There's also two metallic "hub" sensors used to sense tape
motion/tension.  Clean these and the heads, load a scratch tape with
write ring, power it up, close the door, make sure the logic is on,
and hit "TEST" followed by "EXECUTE".  It'll go into a self-test mode,
including some maximum-Maytag gymnastics, which will run for 15
minutes or so on a 2400-foot tape.
   
[Unknown Sigma board]
>   From looking at the board I see that the BDMGI and BDMGO fingers are
>simply shorted and not connected to any circuitry. This means that the
>board is non-DMA, right? If so, it can't emulate RL-11 or any other DEC
>disk controller because they are all DMA, right? The BIAKI and BIAKO
>fingers ARE connected to some circuitry, though, so at least this board
>interrupts, right?

Hmm - you said it has a 40-pin connector.  Given that it doesn't
do DMA, I'm guessing that it's either a DLV11-type clone (a single
serial line) or a parallel interface (either a DRV11-C type or a
line-printer driver, possibly either Data Products or Centronics
interface.)
   
>   And what's DSD?

Data Systems Design - they made some disk controller subsystems.

> The "SIGMA
>INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC." label and the assembly number are etched, not
>silk-screened, stamped, or stickered, so it suggests that Sigma is the
>original designer.

Any obvious buffers (or banks of buffers) near the external connector?  What
are the date codes on the chips?
   
>   What I still don't understand is how do all these interfaces handle the
>issue of recording density (800 BPI vs. 1600 BPI vs. 6250 BPI). You are
>saying that the Pertec unformatted interface is very low-level. Do you mean
>that it gives the controller the raw stream from the heads without trying
>to separate data and clock bits?

At least at 800 and 1600 BPI, the Pertec Unformatted interface does
do the data recovery.  There's a line from the formatter that puts
the drive into either PE (1600 BPI) or NRZI (800 BPI) mode, and some
optional lines that set the thresholds of the analog comparators used
for data recovery.

I'm not too sure about Pertec Unformatted drives at 6250 BPI.

> It is my understanding (please correct me
>if I'm wrong) that the difference between 1600 and 6250 BPI is the data
>encoding (PE vs. GCR) and that the actual magnetic density (flux
>transitions per inch) is the same.

6250 BPI is definitely higher flux density on the tape (in addition to
the different encoding.)

>   And how does the Pertec formatted interface address this issue? In this
>case the controller has to tell the transport what density it wants with
>the transport being able to accept or deny the request depending on its
>capabilities, right?

There are a couple "spare" lines on the Pertec formatted interface
so that the host can tell the formatter such "optional" information.
The interpretation of these spare lines was never perfectly standardized:
sometimes they're used to select 800 vs 1600 or 1600 vs 6250 BPI
operation, other times they're used to put the drive into streaming
vs non-streaming mode, other times it's used to change the speed on
a streaming drive.  The IDEN line was the most commonly used line
on the Pertec formatted interface to choose these options, but some
CDC drives implemented a scheme where density/speed negotiation were
done in a much more complex way.
   
>   This brings me to the following question. Assuming that the Pertec
>formatted interface does carry explicit density control information, which
>software interface would be a better choice in terms of density control,
>TS-11 or TMSCP?

It depends on what your OS's driver is capable of.  In most cases
TMSCP gives you more control.

> It is my understanding that the original UNIBUS TS-11 is a
>formatter for Pertec unformatted transports that supports 1600 BPI only,
>right?

Right.

> If so, the TS-11 interface doesn't give the OS any control over the
>density, does it?

The "official DEC" TS-11 interface didn't.  The DEC TSV05 interface
(which was upward-compatible with the TS11's)
gave the software control over the "high speed" vs "low speed" bit.
And as I pointed out, some drives could be set to interpret this
bit as a density select.  I don't think the ability to set/clear
this bit ever made it into 2.11BSD (looking at the ts driver
code there I don't see it, at least) and I have no idea if it ever
made it to the 4.xBSD's.

> If so, what density does the QT13 choose in this mode?

The QT13 will support either IDEN-style density select or CDC-style
density select, and I believe in MS: mode this choice is made through
the TSV05 speed-select bit.

>And what about TMSCP? How much control does it give to the OS in terms of
>density selection?

TMSCP is much more flexible, and supports at least two different schemes
for selecting and reporting density.  Here's what I've figured out about
possible reported-back density values in the TMSCP packets (as
excerpted from my DUSTAT.MAC):

DENTBL: TBLENT  1       ,<NRZI 800 BPI>
        TBLENT  2       ,<PE 1600 BPI>
        TBLENT  4       ,<GCR 6250 BPI>
        TBLENT  10      ,<Cartridge (TK50)>
        TBLENT  401     ,<NRZI 800 BPI>
        TBLENT  402     ,<PE 1600 BPI>
        TBLENT  404     ,<GCR 6250 BPI>
        TBLENT  420     ,<TU82 special high density>;according to RSTS/E
        TBLENT  1001    ,<Cartridge (TK50)>
        TBLENT  1002    ,<Cartridge (TK70)>
        ;       20xx entries are supposed to be RV80, whatever that is,
        ;            according to RSTS/E sources.

I'm pretty sure that 2.11BSD properly handles TU81 density select
in its TMSCP driver.  (Steve, can you confirm this?  I know you've
made some effort to get write caching to work with TU81's over the
years!)

In any event, remote density selection/reporting is largely a
frill, as any drive/controller combination that I ever used let you
explicitly select it with a physical button or a switch and displayed
the current selection in some useful way on the drive.
   
>> Yep, a TS05 is a rebadged Cipher F880 (with some slightly-different
>> firmware).
>   And where does it stand density-wise? According to DEC, TS05 is a 1600
>BPI only transport, and as far as I can remember, the Cipher at CWRU had
>"1600 BPI" printed on the back somewhere. However, it had a switch on the
>front panel labeled "HI DEN" or something like that. What the hell is this?

Some Cipher's (I think F890's) supported a special 3200 BPI mode.  It
was never in real wide use, but it was supported on some other
manufacturer's drives (some Kennedy 96xx's, for example.)

I know that some F880's had a button that said "HI DEN" but was for
all normal purposes non-functional (I think it did become useful
for selecting diagnostics.)

>   CDC Keystone is exactly what I have here. The interface coming out of
>the (incredibly huge) cabinet is Pertec formatted. Does it have a Pertec
>unformatted interface lurking inside or not? Which densities does it
>support?

1600 BPI only, it's an "embedded-formatter" drive, so there is no
internal Pertec unformatted interface.
   
>   Hmm, the only DEC tape transport with LESI I know of is TU81+. Are there
>any others?

Yep, the RC25 also used the LESI bus.  (LESI="Low End Storage Interconnect".)

> And what about that plus? Has there ever been a TU81 without
>the plus?

Hmm - the non-plus may have been the version without write-caching.
Not real sure.

>Keystone I have here. Since you say above that TU80 is Keystone in
>disguise, does it mean that TU80, TU81, and TU81+ are all the same beast
>with different interface converters tacked on?

They all look similar, and have similar mechanics, but the 81's electronics
can do 6250 BPI, something an 80's can't.
   
>   And what is LESI anyway? I have heard somewhere that the KLESI
>controller can drive more than just a TU81+, so is LESI actually more than
>just a tape interface?

It was CDC's attempt at a SCSI-like universal interface.
   
>   Oh, what about that leading edge strobe vs. trailing edge strobe? Your
>vmsnet.pdp11 posting with the QT13 switch settings says that Kennedy 9300
>uses trailing edge strobe while all others use leading edge strobe. Mine,
>however, is set for trailing edge strobe, and it was connected to the
>Keystone. Does this mean that the Keystone and Kennedy 9300 are the same
>beast, or is it simply that the 9300 is not the only transport using
>trailing edge strobe?

Hmm - some combinations of drives may not be sensitive to this.  (It's
also possibly a misprint in my QT13 manual, as I remember having to
futz with this switch's setting in some cases to get everything to work.)

No, the Keystone and the Kennedy 9300 are not the same beast.  The
Keystone is a cute little streaming tape drive, while the 9300 is
a humongous vacuum-column 125IPS machine.  (I'm sure someone will
now chime in about the days when Univac UniServo drives ruled the
earth...)

-- 
 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