[TUHS] 2.10

[TUHS] 2.10

[Jacob Ritorto]

Hi all,
  Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
meet this goal..

thx
jake
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/81febd5b/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Nick Downing]

Is there any special reason why you want to use 2.09 or 2.10 rather than
the latest, 2.11? Is it because of your hardware requirements, I think
possibly 2.11 requires split I/D right? Anyway the best way to answer your
question is to try it out in SIMH. I do know that 2.11 has a modern TCP/IP
stack, which is backported from 4.3 or thereabouts (it does not suppprt
some advanced features such as syn cookies, so it was not backported from
the latest, but it's pretty modern still). I would be interested to know if
2.09 or 2.10 have the same TCP/IP stack as 2.11, my feeling is they don't.
cheers, Nick
On 21/11/2014 12:34 PM, "Jacob Ritorto" <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>   Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
> contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
> I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
> and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
> hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
> backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
> most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
> meet this goal..
>
> thx
> jake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/251bc9ad/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Jacob Ritorto]

Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
reachable on the net.

  From what I've read, 2.11 is right out except for the little glimmer of
hope in the docs that it "would probably only require a moderate amount of
squeezing to fit on machines with less memory, but it would also be very
unhappy about the prospect," which I think roughly translates to, "don't
try it on a puny thing like an 11/34."

  I wonder if porting telnet and ftp to 2.9 on the 11/34 would be my best
hope?  But with a much more antique tcp stack, it sounds daunting.


On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 2.10 and 2.11 require split I/D, right? I'm positive 2.9 was the
> latest I could run on my 11/34.
>
> Jim
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/7e451367/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Cory Smelosky]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Jacob Ritorto wrote:

> Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
> 2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
> but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
> reachable on the net.
>

Was it branched from the CSRG tree or was it implemented third-party?  I 
can search my copy of the SCCS tree and see what it would've included if 
the former is the case.

>  From what I've read, 2.11 is right out except for the little glimmer of
> hope in the docs that it "would probably only require a moderate amount of
> squeezing to fit on machines with less memory, but it would also be very
> unhappy about the prospect," which I think roughly translates to, "don't
> try it on a puny thing like an 11/34."
>
>  I wonder if porting telnet and ftp to 2.9 on the 11/34 would be my best
> hope?  But with a much more antique tcp stack, it sounds daunting.
>

Wonder if ULTRIX-11 would work on an 11/34 or if the usermode stack would 
run under MINIX-UNIX

>

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

[TUHS] 2.10

[Cory Smelosky]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
>
>> Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
>> 2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
>> but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
>> reachable on the net.
>> 
>
> Was it branched from the CSRG tree or was it implemented third-party?  I can 
> search my copy of the SCCS tree and see what it would've included if the 
> former is the case.
>

Oh, nevermind.  Looks like I have an archive containing 2.10 source and 
(maybe) some binaries.

# Machine type
# 2.10 runs on:
#	11/24/34/44/53/60/70/73/83/84
#	11/23/35/40/45/50/55 with 18 or 22 bit addressing
# 2.10 WILL NOT run on:
#	T11, 11/03/04/05/10/15/20/21
#	11/23/35/40/45/50/55 with 16 bit addressing
# 2.10 networking will run on:
#	11/44/53/70/73/83/84
#	11/45/50/55 with 18 bit addressing

#ifndef lint
static char sccsid[] = "@(#)telnetd.c   5.19 (Berkeley) 7/27/87";
#endif not lint


-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

[TUHS] 2.10

[Clem Cole]

I don't think the BSD networking code in 2.10 worked on systems with only
256K bytes of memory.  The kernel is too big even without networking and a
lot of work was done to push things out of the kernel. [The 17th bit (split
I/D) really only mattered for user space, the kernel mapped things around -
but with only 18 bits of address map there is not much space]. Adding
networking and in particular the space for the mbuf's becomes a real issue.


Here are some thoughts..

1.) Easiest/Cheapest solution might be to front end the system with an RPi,
Intel Edison or the like and run the IP stack on it and then use one or
more serial ports from the micro to 11.

2.) See if you can dig up an old copy of the 3 COM's first product - UNET -
which was the original TCP/IP for V7.  It's old and not very sexy, but the
kernel requirements are minimal and if all you want it telnet & FTP that
will work.

3.) If you have real hardware, see if you can find an old Able "Enable"
board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory in an 40 class processor
(you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22 bits of address like the 45
class processors).   I had 2.X working on that years ago (and wrote a
USENIX paper on it).  The Enable board support was in the BSD 2*
distributions (I put there) but I doubt its been tried in many years.

4.) Ultrix-11 should boot on a 40 class system, but I do not remember if on
the 18 bit machines you could configure networking.   Armando might
remember if Fred ever made that work.  If any one could have or would have,
it would have been Fred.  As I said, there just is not a lot of space and
frankly there is not going to be a lot of space left for user programs.

Clem

PS I remember running V6 on 11/34 with 48K bytes of memory for a few months
as our memory for that system was back ordered.  It was slow, but it worked
and we were happy.  It was our machine!!

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>   Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
> contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
> I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
> and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
> hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
> backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
> most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
> meet this goal..
>
> thx
> jake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/cebdf591/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Cory Smelosky]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Clem Cole wrote:

> I don't think the BSD networking code in 2.10 worked on systems with only
> 256K bytes of memory.  The kernel is too big even without networking and a
> lot of work was done to push things out of the kernel. [The 17th bit (split
> I/D) really only mattered for user space, the kernel mapped things around -
> but with only 18 bits of address map there is not much space]. Adding
> networking and in particular the space for the mbuf's becomes a real issue.
>

It's unsupported; see my email where I pasted the "HCL" from 2.10's 
GENERIC config.

>
> Here are some thoughts..
>
> 1.) Easiest/Cheapest solution might be to front end the system with an RPi,
> Intel Edison or the like and run the IP stack on it and then use one or
> more serial ports from the micro to 11.
>

Well, 2.10 has SLIP, but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple 
userland tool to talk to a frontend!

> 2.) See if you can dig up an old copy of the 3 COM's first product - UNET -
> which was the original TCP/IP for V7.  It's old and not very sexy, but the
> kernel requirements are minimal and if all you want it telnet & FTP that
> will work.
>

That I am pretty sure I DO NOT have source for.

> 3.) If you have real hardware, see if you can find an old Able "Enable"
> board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory in an 40 class processor
> (you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22 bits of address like the 45
> class processors).   I had 2.X working on that years ago (and wrote a
> USENIX paper on it).  The Enable board support was in the BSD 2*
> distributions (I put there) but I doubt its been tried in many years.
>

That sounds like a neat board.  Betting it's a bit hard to find, though. 
;)

> 4.) Ultrix-11 should boot on a 40 class system, but I do not remember if on
> the 18 bit machines you could configure networking.   Armando might
> remember if Fred ever made that work.  If any one could have or would have,
> it would have been Fred.  As I said, there just is not a lot of space and
> frankly there is not going to be a lot of space left for user programs.
>

I'd check but I'm pretty sure I don't have Ultrix-11 sources. :(

> Clem
>
> PS I remember running V6 on 11/34 with 48K bytes of memory for a few months
> as our memory for that system was back ordered.  It was slow, but it worked
> and we were happy.  It was our machine!!
>

What were you using for paging/swapping on that?

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

[TUHS] 2.10

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1551 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/ab5a1bb6/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Cory Smelosky]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Clem Cole wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
>
> ​just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.
>

Mmmm, right.  I figured.

>
>
>
> 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.
>

I take it you actually understand BERKNET's addressing then?  I could 
never figure it out!

> Clem
>

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

[TUHS] 2.10

[Jacob Ritorto]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3199 bytes --]

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 <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> 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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/7fbbc1d9/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4277 bytes --]

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 <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>
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 <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> 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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/c5970403/attachment.html>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Erik E. Fair]

	Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:07:59 -0500 (EST)
	From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>

	I take it you actually understand BERKNET's addressing then? I could 
	never figure it out!

BerkNET was its own thing: it was effectively a store & forward batch/file
based networking system which could handle E-mail, print jobs, and remote
execution of commands for your account on another machine, if you sent the
password to the account along. It's somewhat similar to UUCP, actually. Eric
Schmidt (of Sun, Novell, & Google) wrote the code as a UCB grad student,
because (as I heard it) the Berkeley Computer Center wanted to be paid money
every time an operator had to hang a magtape on a tape drive, and the CS
department was tired of being bled to move small files around.

BerkNet used one single ASCII character designation per machine, originally
just 26 allowed, and later extended to numerals for a total of 36 (before
Ethernet & TCP/IP obsoleted it). The routing table for BerkNet was a
statically-compiled table in every instance of its primary daemon, and if the
network topology changed sufficiently, each daemon had to be modified and
recompiled. No redundancy allowed in the network, if I recall correctly.

Pretty slow convergence for changes to the routing table.

Longer names were also allowed as aliases for the single letter, and that's
what was sent to the rest of the world in E-mail addresses, e.g.
cory:cc-54 at berkeley (Computer Club account #54, on the Cory Hall PDP-11/70;
I think Cory's letter was "y") was my first ARPANET-reachable E-mail address.
There might be some instances of that in the HUMAN-NETS or SF-LOVERS archives
from 1981. I suspect that BerkNet's colon separator for host:file was how
the rcp command got that syntax, and probably how ssh inherited it.

Google turned up the following: http://typewritten.org/Articles/berk-net.html

Being RS-232 serial-based, the interrupt loading was horrific ... so they
restricted the bandwidth to 1200 baud (plus, there were some rather long RS-232
cable runs between buildings), unless you used a serial interface card that
had some input buffering & DMA I/O like the DH-11. The DZ-11 was
contraindicated. To further lower overhead, there's even a TTY line discipline
for BerkNet, so you don't wake up the daemon until a full packet arrives, even
though the TTY interface is set to "raw" mode.

I was for a time a system administrator for the "x" machine at UCB: the Onyx
Z8002 installed for the undergrads in the basement of Evans Hall (room B50).
That's also the machine on which "B news" was written by Matt Glickman.

Later, I ran a small BerkNet (before we got Ethernet) at Dual Systems in
Berkeley, between the Dual 83/80 mc68000-based S-100 systems in the various
departments (engineering, sales, manufacturing/test), before we got an S-100
Ethernet card working and ran thick Ethernet. We were able to run it at 19,200
baud because Dual made some really sweet, 256-byte input buffer, DMA I/O,
4-port serial cards: the SIO-4/DMA, based around the Zilog z8530 DUART.

I insisted that we wait for ARP to be done before we deployed Ethernet &
TCP/IP, because evil old hack of grabbing a Class A IP network number,
pretending that the first three MAC address bytes were always the same (after
all, everyone always uses Ethernet interfaces from the exact same manufacturer
in every host on a given LAN, right?) and mapping the last three MAC bytes
into the host part of the Class A wasn't going to fly in the real world.

The hacks we used to do to make these turkeys fly ...

	Erik <fair at netbsd.org>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Cory Smelosky]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 26, 2014, at 01:28, Erik E. Fair <fair-tuhs at netbsd.org> wrote:
> 
>    Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:07:59 -0500 (EST)
>    From: Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net>
> 
>    I take it you actually understand BERKNET's addressing then? I could 
>    never figure it out!
> 
> BerkNET was its own thing: it was effectively a store & forward batch/file
> based networking system which could handle E-mail, print jobs, and remote
> execution of commands for your account on another machine, if you sent the
> password to the account along. It's somewhat similar to UUCP, actually. Eric
> Schmidt (of Sun, Novell, & Google) wrote the code as a UCB grad student,
> because (as I heard it) the Berkeley Computer Center wanted to be paid money
> every time an operator had to hang a magtape on a tape drive, and the CS
> department was tired of being bled to move small files around.

That explains that!

> 
> BerkNet used one single ASCII character designation per machine, originally
> just 26 allowed, and later extended to numerals for a total of 36 (before
> Ethernet & TCP/IP obsoleted it). The routing table for BerkNet was a
> statically-compiled table in every instance of its primary daemon, and if the
> network topology changed sufficiently, each daemon had to be modified and
> recompiled. No redundancy allowed in the network, if I recall correctly.

Heh, looks like I won't bother with Berknet then. ;)

> 
> Pretty slow convergence for changes to the routing table.

To say the least!

> 
> Longer names were also allowed as aliases for the single letter, and that's
> what was sent to the rest of the world in E-mail addresses, e.g.
> cory:cc-54 at berkeley (Computer Club account #54, on the Cory Hall PDP-11/70;
> I think Cory's letter was "y") was my first ARPANET-reachable E-mail address.
> There might be some instances of that in the HUMAN-NETS or SF-LOVERS archives
> from 1981. I suspect that BerkNet's colon separator for host:file was how
> the rcp command got that syntax, and probably how ssh inherited it.
> 
> Google turned up the following: http://typewritten.org/Articles/berk-net.html
> 
> Being RS-232 serial-based, the interrupt loading was horrific ... so they
> restricted the bandwidth to 1200 baud (plus, there were some rather long RS-232
> cable runs between buildings), unless you used a serial interface card that
> had some input buffering & DMA I/O like the DH-11. The DZ-11 was
> contraindicated. To further lower overhead, there's even a TTY line discipline
> for BerkNet, so you don't wake up the daemon until a full packet arrives, even
> though the TTY interface is set to "raw" mode.
> 
> I was for a time a system administrator for the "x" machine at UCB: the Onyx
> Z8002 installed for the undergrads in the basement of Evans Hall (room B50).
> That's also the machine on which "B news" was written by Matt Glickman.

What OS did that machine run? I don't think BSD unless it was elsewhere in the tree.

> 
> Later, I ran a small BerkNet (before we got Ethernet) at Dual Systems in
> Berkeley, between the Dual 83/80 mc68000-based S-100 systems in the various
> departments (engineering, sales, manufacturing/test), before we got an S-100
> Ethernet card working and ran thick Ethernet. We were able to run it at 19,200
> baud because Dual made some really sweet, 256-byte input buffer, DMA I/O,
> 4-port serial cards: the SIO-4/DMA, based around the Zilog z8530 DUART.

I'd love a 68k S-100 system.

> 
> I insisted that we wait for ARP to be done before we deployed Ethernet &
> TCP/IP, because evil old hack of grabbing a Class A IP network number,
> pretending that the first three MAC address bytes were always the same (after
> all, everyone always uses Ethernet interfaces from the exact same manufacturer
> in every host on a given LAN, right?) and mapping the last three MAC bytes
> into the host part of the Class A wasn't going to fly in the real world.

Yeah...that would not have worked well. ;)

> 
> The hacks we used to do to make these turkeys fly ...
> 
>    Erik <fair at netbsd.org>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3825 bytes --]

Erik - nice job.   A couple of additions/corrections.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Erik E. Fair <fair-tuhs at netbsd.org> wrote:

>
>
> BerkNET was its own thing:
> ​...
> It's somewhat similar to UUCP
>
​Right , like UUCP you could copy files.​



> because (as I heard it) the Berkeley Computer Center wanted to be paid
> money
> every time an operator had to hang a magtape on a tape drive, and the CS
> department was tired of being bled to move small files around.
>
​Never heard that story.  While there was never a great deal of love
between EECS and the BCC, the reason (I believe) was so that folks in
Evan's could send email to the ArpaNET.  The only connection to the Arpanet
was the Ingress (11/70) in Cory.​   UCB did not have it's own IMP, LBL had
one up the hill and a "long host adapter" was used between Cory and one of
the ports on the LBL IMP.   It was not until much later, when UCB finally
got a C30 in Evans during the CSRG time that there was much more than email
support.  Horton lurks on this list and might remember/know for sure.




>
>  No redundancy allowed in the network, if I recall correctly.
>
​I'm not sure what you mean by this.   It was a point to point network like
UUCP, but unlike UUCP routing was handled by the protocol (as you said -
the tables were compiled into the code).​




>
> Pretty slow convergence for changes to the routing table.
>
​i.e. manually done.   BTW: the Arpanet was not much better at the time​




>
> I suspect that BerkNet's colon separator for host:file was how
> the rcp command got that syntax, and probably how ssh inherited it.
>
​Nice idea - but no.  Sam & Eric Cooper modeled rcp from the program of the
same name at PARC for the Altos.​  PARC is also what gave us routed BTW.



>
> Google turned up the following:
> http://typewritten.org/Articles/berk-net.html
>
> unless you used a serial interface card that
> had some input buffering & DMA I/O like the DH-11.

​Right - the 70s mostly had DH11's which were a full "system unit" on the
unibus (they are all SSI/MSI TTL - pretty amazing actually).    Many Vaxen
had DZ's which were a mess.   Once the Able DH/DM came out, most of us
switched to them and those lines ran at 9.6 or 19.2, but they were short
lived, with the entry the 3M ethernet board that linked the CAD group's
Vaxen, the Ingress machines and the machine room in Evans.​




> I insisted that we wait for ARP to be done before we deployed Ethernet &
> TCP/IP, because evil old hack of grabbing a Class A IP network number,
> pretending that the first three MAC address bytes were always the same
> (after
> all, everyone always uses Ethernet interfaces from the exact same
> manufacturer
> in every host on a given LAN, right?) and mapping the last three MAC bytes
> into the host part of the Class A wasn't going to fly in the real world.
>
​Sigh - that was me in 1979...  when Glaser and I did original IP stack
with 3COM (aka UNET) @ Tektronix and since we were not (yet) on the
Internet, it did not matter[BTW: look at the HyperChannel code - there are
worse addressing hacks in there].  While I knew about MIT's ChaoNet I had
never seen the code.   The MIT guys did ARP for ChaosNet which quickly
migrated down the street to BBN for the 4.1 IP stack.  Remember that BBN
had the contract to do IP for UNIX and that was the stack a number of us
ran on our Vaxen for long time [IIRC - Sam actually did the routed and rcp
stuff which the BBN stack, before Joy had rewritten it - created the
sockets interface etc].




>
> The hacks we used to do to make these turkeys fly ...

​Hey it worked just fine at the time.

Clem​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141126/1695a0ff/attachment.html>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Erik E. Fair wrote:

> I suspect that BerkNet's colon separator for host:file was how the rcp 
> command got that syntax, and probably how ssh inherited it.

That could also explain why ACSnet's first incarnation also used a colon 
separator (you'll see me as "dave:csu40" in some early AUUGN editions; 
that's me at the University of NSW Computing Services Unit 11/40).

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Bliss is a MacBook with a FreeBSD server."
http://www.horsfall.org/spam.html (and check the home page whilst you're there)

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Dan Cross]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

> [snip]  The MIT guys did ARP for ChaosNet which quickly migrated down the
> street to BBN for the 4.1 IP stack.  Remember that BBN had the contract to
> do IP for UNIX and that was the stack a number of us ran on our Vaxen for
> long time [IIRC - Sam actually did the routed and rcp stuff which the BBN
> stack, before Joy had rewritten it - created the sockets interface etc].
>

This brings up something I've been meaning to ask about for a while now.
Whatever happened to the BBN stack after the BSD stack became dominant?  Is
any of the code still available anywhere?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141126/3b81aab7/attachment.html>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Clem Cole]

BBN did a second release that used the sockets.    At Stellar we used that
stack, not the UCB stack, since we were taking System V and adding BSD to
it.  Since the author of the BBN stack (Rob Gurwitz) was with us, it was
felt that the BBN stack was actually better in many ways.  In particular,
we had a parallel machine and it was felt that the BBN stack would be
easier/cleaner to multi-thread.

I can ask around, I lost track of the code base after Stellar.   tjt might
still know.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip]  The MIT guys did ARP for ChaosNet which quickly migrated down the
>> street to BBN for the 4.1 IP stack.  Remember that BBN had the contract to
>> do IP for UNIX and that was the stack a number of us ran on our Vaxen for
>> long time [IIRC - Sam actually did the routed and rcp stuff which the BBN
>> stack, before Joy had rewritten it - created the sockets interface etc].
>>
>
> This brings up something I've been meaning to ask about for a while now.
> Whatever happened to the BBN stack after the BSD stack became dominant?  Is
> any of the code still available anywhere?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141126/b2561a33/attachment.html>

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Mary Ann Horton]

On 11/25/2014 10:48 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
>
> I was for a time a system administrator for the "x" machine at UCB: the Onyx
> Z8002 installed for the undergrads in the basement of Evans Hall (room B50).
> That's also the machine on which "B news" was written by Matt Glickman.
> What OS did that machine run? I don't think BSD unless it was elsewhere in the tree.
>
>
I seem to recall it was a V7 port.  I recall copying (initially with cu 
and ~%put, later with UUCP and Berknet) over Berkeley tools like vi and 
porting them.  The Z8000 was a 16 bit processor.

http://olduse.net/sites/ucbonyx.txt

[TUHS] BerkNet

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Mary Ann Horton <mah at mhorton.net> wrote:

> I seem to recall it was a V7 port.


​That is right.  They showed it off/announced it at the Delaware USENIX
conference.  I remember all of us being wowed by it.​  It was a single 19"
so called 2U box and included the disk inside.   Incredible small and
(quiet) for the time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141129/7a513bf0/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.10

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com>

    > an old Able "Enable" board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory
    > in an 40 class processor (you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22
    > bits of address like the 45 class processors).

But it doesn't add I/D to a machine without it, though, right? (I tried
looking for Enable documentation online, couldn't find any. Does anyone know
of any?)

I recall at MIT we had a board we added to our 11/45 which added a cache, and
the ability to have more than 256KB of memory, but I am unable to remember
much more about it (e.g. who made it, or what it was called) - it must have
been one of these.

I recall we had to set up the various memory maps inside the CPU to
permanently point to various ranges of UNIBUS address space (so that, e.g.
User I space was assigned 400000-577777), and then the memory map inside the
board mapped those out to the full 4MB space; the code changes were (IIRC)
restricted to m45.s; for the rest of the code, we just redefined UISA0 to
point to the one on the added board, etc. And the board had a UNIBUS map to
allow UNIBUS devices access to all of real memory, just like on an 11/70.


    > From: Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>

    > So does that single board contain the memory and everything, or is this
    > a backplane mod/special memory kind of setup?

I honestly don't recall much about how the board we had at MIT worked, but i)
the memory was not on the board itself, and ii) there had to be some kind of
special arrangements for the memory, since the stock UNIBUS only has 18 bits
of address space. IIRC, the thing we had could use standard Extended UNIBUS
memory cards.

I don't recall how the mapping board got access to the memory - whether the
whole works came with a small custom backplane which one stuck between the
CPU and the rest of the system, and into which the new board and the EUB
memory got plugged, or what. I had _thought_ it somehow used the FastBUS
provision in the 11/45 backplane for high-speed memory (since with the board
in, the machine had a basic instruction time of 300nsec if you hit the cache,
just like an 11/70), and plugged in there somewhere, but maybe not, since
apparently this board you have is for a /34? Or maybe there were two
different models, one for the /45 and one for the /34?

    > With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this
    > one?

Since I doubt it adds I/D to machines that don't already have it, I would
guess no. Unless somehow one can use overlays, etc, to fit 2.11 into 56KB of
address space (note, not 'memory').

    > I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could run that build much more
    > easily and appropriately..

That's where I'd go.

I do have that MIT V6 Unix with TCP/IP, where the TCP is almost entirely in
user space (only incoming packet demux, etc is in the kernel), and I have
found backup tapes for it, which are off at an old tape specialist being
read, and the interim reports on readability are good, but until that
happens, I'm not sure we'll be seeing TCP/IP on non-split-I/D machines.

	Noel