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