>3033 and 3081 in 370 mode were 24bit 16mbyte) addressing (real & virtual).
We had 40M on our 3081 in 370 mode.
Virtual was 16, but the OS could use the extra 24M, not as efficiently as XA,
but it was used.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
---
ng with the 3033MP?
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#71 308x Processors - was "Mainframe
articles"
... the 3033 had special page table entry definition for 14-bit real
page number (16384 4096byte real pages or 64mbytes).
the internal 3033 hardware could address more than 16
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#66 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#67 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#68 IT Infrastructure Slideshow: The IBM
Mainframe: 50 Years of Big Iron Innovation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#70
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was "Mainframe articles"
3033 and 3081 in 370 m
.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#66 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#67 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#68 IT Infrastructure Slideshow: The IBM
Mainframe: 50 Years of Big Iron Innovation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#70 Mainframe art
Correction they were 3081K 32's, one of the other posts jolted my memory back
into focus. Sorry for the drift.
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Patrick Falcone wrote:
From: Patrick Falcone
Subject: Re: 308x Processors - was "Mainframe articles"
To: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List&quo
On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:03:04 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
wrote:
>
>
>"Bruno Sugliani" wrote in message
>news:...
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:51:26 -0400, Scott T. Harder
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe it was a 3080 when I first logged on to TSO??? Sorry... a bit
>foggy.
>> >
>> I would guess a 3081
>>
In a message dated 5/12/2009 8:20:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
l...@garlic.com writes:
initial 3081 ... was 3081D where each processor was about five mips ...
not a whole lot faster than 3033 two-processor. fairly quickly after
that, 3081K shipped with each processor about seven mips (14m
We had 3081's at a time share back in the mid 80's. At one point we took 2
3081G's and had IBM put them together to form a 3084 Q64 w/PIF.
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Martin Packer wrote:
From: Martin Packer
Subject: 308x Processors - was "Mainframe articles"
To: IBM-MAIN@
On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:14:32 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>3082 waas the "service processor". One of the issues was that field
>engineering required a "boot-strap" diagnostic process ... which started
>with scoping failed components and going up from there. TCMs in 308x
>were not "scope'abl
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#66 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#67 Mainframe articles
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#68 IT Infrastructure
Care to talk about the various slugged (and not slugged) models. And
"base" vs "X"?
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer
Performance Consultant
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
+44-20-8832-5167
+44-7802-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
Twitter ID: MartinPacker
"They're figuring out that collaboration is
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
scottyt.har...@gmail.com (Scott T. Harder) writes:
> Very cool. Funny, though... I remember first logging onto TSO on what
> I thought was a 3082 (although I didn't know what even DASD w
3083 was Uni, 3081 was Dyadic (2 -way Non-Partitionable), 3084 was
Partitionable 4-way. Base and X models with almost unrememberable model
letters.
Interestingly, later on you could get a 1+1 2-way and a 2+1 3-way. The
benefits of these were larger caches (as you got 2 of them). I'm not sure
"Bruno Sugliani" wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:51:26 -0400, Scott T. Harder
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe it was a 3080 when I first logged on to TSO??? Sorry... a bit
foggy.
> >
> I would guess a 3081
>
> Bruno Sugliani
I think so too.
A 3082 and 3083 were parts of the 3081
On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:51:26 -0400, Scott T. Harder
wrote:
>Maybe it was a 3080 when I first logged on to TSO??? Sorry... a bit foggy.
>
I would guess a 3081
Bruno Sugliani
zxnetconsult(at)free(dot)fr
http://zxnetconsult.free.fr
---
Maybe it was a 3080 when I first logged on to TSO??? Sorry... a bit foggy.
On 5/11/09, Scott T. Harder wrote:
> Very cool. Funny, though... I remember first logging onto TSO on what
> I thought was a 3082 (although I didn't know what even DASD was at the
> time). Then, when I finally got my ha
Very cool. Funny, though... I remember first logging onto TSO on what
I thought was a 3082 (although I didn't know what even DASD was at the
time). Then, when I finally got my hands on a mainframe in MCO, it
was a 3084. This slideshow shows a 3083, which I don't have any
recollection of. Looks
A nice slide show on the history of IBM mainframes:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/The-IBM-Mainframe-50-Years-of
-Big-Iron-Innovation-583073/?kc=EWKNLEDP05112009A
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/50-Years-of-IBM-Mainframe-Mil
estones-136541/?kc=EWKNLEDP05112009C
19 matches
Mail list logo
