On 2017-03-11 22:36, Sergey Oboguev wrote:
Just curious:
Is HSC firmware and software available?
Firmware and software are the same thing here! :-)
And yes, the CRONIC OS is possible to get. I don't know if anyone
already have made it available anywhere, but I know where I can get a
copy for the HSC90 if nothing else.
(Well, I know someone who has a live system running with HSCs
http://fafner.dyndns.org <http://fafner.dyndns.org/>
telnet fafner.dyndns.org
so the software for at least *some* HSC models might be retrievable,
less sure about the firmware.)
What firmware are you referring to?
As for running, Update have HSJs that we use if we just flip the power.
We could also roll in the HSC90 if we wanted to.
Does there exist a sufficiently detailed hardware spec on the HSC? if
yes, which models?
I have not seen any detailed hardware specs for any CI controllers.
Maybe someone else knows if any?
In particular, a description of CI/SC interface from the HSC side?
Unless I remember wrong, it's the same cards as in the CI780.
After all, the source code for VMS and BSD is available, so one might
hypothetically infer what they expect from CI by reverse-engineering the
source code.
I didn't know VMS sources were available. Where do you find them?
As for BSD, the only "BSD" which supports CI is Ultrix.
BSD4.x, NetBSD and OpenBSD do not support CI at all. For the very simple
reason that DEC never released the documentation.
But what about the J-11 side?
That would be the CRONIC OS. We have binaries... But I'm not so sure
about any documentation of the rest of the content in a HSC...
Johnny
Thanks,
Sergey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Johnny Billquist <[email protected]>
*To:* Mark Pizzolato <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, March 11, 2017 1:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Simh] LAVC
On 2017-03-11 19:41, Mark Pizzolato wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2017-03-11 17:18, Mark Pizzolato wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tim Stark wrote:
Thanks for many replies. I learned a lot about VAX clustering. I will
use multicast Ethernet for clustering. I have more one question. Is
that possible to emulate HSC controllers with LAVC access?
When Matt Burke and I were discussing the CI concept, we picked IP
Multicast as transport for the very specific reason that all modern
host systems will have natural user mode programming access to
implement this functionality. Attempting to create your own Ethernet
multicast protocol (non-IP based) will have portability complexities
on different platforms due to the fact different platforms have
varying support (and potentially require privilege) to present and/or
receive raw Ethernet frames to/from a LAN.
I don't know for sure, but I assume that Tim just meant that he will
let LAVC
do as LAVC does, without him doing anything.
And LAVC itself might be using ethernet multicasting.
This is no more an issue than DECnet communication, which also requires
access to the raw ethernet.
True. It could use the existing raw Ethernet access methods, but that
approach
would have the following issues:
1) Some platforms require significant privilege (root) to do this.
Same as DECnet.
2) He would have to re-invent much of what LAVC does.
I thought he was talking just about LAVC, not inventing something new.
3) The same problems that exist today on *nix hosts to provide a
mechanism for multiple simulators running on the same host to be able to
concurrently communicate with each other will exist.
An IP multicast based solution lets the host OS solve much of this.
Either you or me is missing something. I thought he was just talking
about using LAVC (and thus raw ethernet) for clustering. Meaning he'll
just fire up is simh instance, and start running. And that's the end of it.
Seems like you are thinking he is going to implement something. Not sure
exactly what. Emulate CI? Possible, but will require a lot more work
than just transporting the bytes over the network. But, that said, it
probably makes sense to use IP instead of raw ethernet if you are going
to implement this. And my reasoning for that don't have as much to do
with any network access (which you still will want to have for DECnet
anyhow), but because CI frames are something like 8K in size. So you're
going to have to implement some kind of complex layer on top of ethernet
if you do that. And then you are going to get close to what IP/UDP will
do for you anyhow, so why reinvent the wheel?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> || Reading
murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: [email protected] || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
