From lars@nocrew.org Wed Oct 25 14:15:06 PDT 2000 Article: 1544 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news-sto.telia.net!news.defero.net!junk.nocrew.org!not-for-mail From: lars brinkhoff Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: PDP-10 processor features Organization: NoCrew Laboratories Lines: 4 Sender: lars@junk.nocrew.org Message-ID: <858zrpnfvu.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:17:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.73.17.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@defero.net X-Trace: news.defero.net 971698647 212.73.17.42 (Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:17:27 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:17:27 MET DST Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1544 I have made a table of PDP-10 processor features, including clones: http://pdp10.nocrew.org/tab.html I would greatly appreciate any corrections or additional information. From shsrms@bellatlantic.net Wed Oct 25 14:15:21 PDT 2000 Article: 1548 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!europa.netcrusader.net!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon1.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <39EB5F67.9155AA80@bellatlantic.net> From: hg/jb Reply-To: shsrms@bellatlantic.net Organization: The Keltic League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD BA45DSL (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: PDP-10 processor features References: <858zrpnfvu.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 10 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:01:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.88.64.143 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon1.ba-dsg.net 971726473 138.88.64.143 (Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:01:13 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:01:13 EDT Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1548 two corrections to KC10, clock speed, 50-100MHZ (micro engine) Frontend, F-11 based SBC (included diagnostic path) lars brinkhoff wrote: > > I have made a table of PDP-10 processor features, including clones: > http://pdp10.nocrew.org/tab.html > > I would greatly appreciate any corrections or additional information. From shsrms@bellatlantic.net Wed Oct 25 14:15:32 PDT 2000 Article: 1556 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!europa.netcrusader.net!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon2.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <39ECC6D9.F9A1B17B@bellatlantic.net> From: hg/jb Reply-To: shsrms@bellatlantic.net Organization: The Keltic League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD BA45DSL (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: PDP-10 processor features References: <858zrpnfvu.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <39EB5F67.9155AA80@bellatlantic.net> <85itqsm1qg.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:35:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.88.34.144 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon2.ba-dsg.net 971818536 138.88.34.144 (Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:35:36 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:35:36 EDT Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1556 lars brinkhoff wrote: > > hg/jb writes: > > lars brinkhoff wrote: > > > I have made a table of PDP-10 processor features, including clones: > > > http://pdp10.nocrew.org/tab.html > > > I would greatly appreciate any corrections or additional information. > > > > two corrections to KC10, > > clock speed, 50-100MHZ (micro engine) > > Frontend, F-11 based SBC (included diagnostic path) > > Thank you. You are welcome. > > Is that F-11 the same processor as in the PDP-11/23 and /24? Also, > what is an SBC? F11 is the old designator for the 11/23 class cpu, FONZ-11, SBC is Single Board Computer. The console/frontend of the KC was an F11, winchester (or ST500 style) MFM disk interface, diagnostic interface (to collect diag bits form the KC10), serial lines (vt100 or better was the physical console device), and a bunch of memory, and sat on the KC bus. bob From lars@nocrew.org Wed Oct 25 14:15:56 PDT 2000 Article: 1558 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news2.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.tele.dk!128.39.3.166!uninett.no!newsfeed1.enitel.no!masternews.telia.net!news-sto.telia.net!news.defero.net!junk.nocrew.org!not-for-mail From: lars brinkhoff Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL Organization: NoCrew Laboratories Lines: 176 Sender: lars@junk.nocrew.org Message-ID: <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:28:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.73.17.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@defero.net X-Trace: news.defero.net 971864910 212.73.17.42 (Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:28:30 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:28:30 MET DST Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1558 I found these three letters referring to two Tymshare PDP-10 clones called System 26 and System 26KL. May it be that 26XL of Mark Crispin's posting in http://www.inwap.com/pdp10/usenet/poole (or http://pdp10.nocrew.org/cpu/26xl.1.txt) is a typo? Or is the 26XL another clone, perhaps a follow-up to the 26KL? To confuse the matter further, Joe Smith's PDP-10 page mentions a "X-KL" model: My documents * Tymshare * History * Reunion 1-Jul-2000 * Hardware (KI, KL, X-KL) ^^^^ Also note the reference to TYMCOM-20. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29-Feb-84 01:41 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien Ken, I guess I the right person to ask most of those questions. let me try ... [KLH: Are F2s or F3s still available? What about the newer machines?] The F2 (or F3 as we call it) is no longer made. We have 8 but they are all used at TYM. Some clients some internal users. There are two models of interest relating to F4. System 26 is based on the F4 CPU and runs TENEX. It has ucode that supports the KA instruction set and emulates the KA TENEX map (pager). We have several of these, one is at SRI and one at CECOM in New Jersey (both of these are owned by customer). This model is no longer being made although one might be obtainable in the future. System 26KL is the latest model. It is also based on the F4 CPU but is modified to support the full extended addressing (actually 32 bits hardware-wise but that is not used since TOPS-20 does not use all those bits either). The 26KL has totally different ucode and emulates the KL instruction set including ALL the extended business instruction set. it emulates the KL style map. It runs the TYMCOM-20 operating System which is user identical to the TOPS-20 system. The 26Kl is spec-ed at 2.5 times the KA at the machine instruction level. This seems to be proved out but we are undergoing a big performance push right now and hope to have formal data by spring showing this to be at true. System 26KL is MOST definitely available for leasing or buying. We are gearing up for production of these beasts. There is a strong backing internally to use these machines for internal use in addition to external sales/leases. This provides a built in demand. the cost of a nicely configured system (1 meg memory, a few disks (660 MB), etc.) is about $300,000. You could probably push on that for universities but not sure how much. Yes, we are willing to provide access to ucode but this has yet to be made a firm committment from upper management. The front end (if used in the KL sense) does NOT exists. There is a Console computer that is used for booting and diagnostic work but has no relationship with I/O functions of the mainframe. We have TYMNET but no MILNET yet since we do NOT have the TCP/IP sources for TOPS-20 (can we get that from someone?? we do have a source license for TOPS-20 so I think we are entitled to it). We are anxiously seeking out programmers for both the monitor level work and for ucoding. I have two opening right now. We have hired a few enginerring types to help with manufacturing and for enhancements. I personally would love to have cooperative ventures with universities. Let me know if there is more interest from any quarters. Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-Mar-84 23:47 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien [KLH: I asked for more details on the speed differences...] The 26KL has NO cache and although it is on the list of possible items to do, we currently have NO plans to implement it. You first have to understand why a cache on the 2060 is worth it. The memory cycle time is something like 800 ns so a cache can have a very dramatic effect. The 26KL has a memory cycle time of 350 to 425 depending on how we set some parameters. Right now we can run with no problems at 375 ns. Thus, we feel the cache will NOT provide a significant enhancement of performance as compared to some other ideas. The 26KL instruction speed (running the KL set) varies from lower than the KL (I won't say figures) to higher than the KL. On the average (what ever that means) it seems to come out to about 60% of the KL. Remember this is an instruction set speed comparison. I think the 2060 wins bigger in the I/O due to multiple controllers. Currently two is the max for the 26KL. We have a very nice list of wonderful things we can do with the 26kl to make it much better (VERY likely better than the 2060) but one OVERRIDING factor MUST happen. WE MUST SEE IF THE MARKETPLACE WILL ACCEPT THE 26KL. (basically as is). If not it does not make sense for us to develop it. We are rounding it out now and cleaning it up. It really is there and works. Several are at TYM now. We are very anxious to see the marketplace show interest. It did at the show but that seems to have died off. Very disappointing. (of course you may find fault with the lack of heavy advertising on our part, regretably that is a fact but not sure if that would have changed the situation). Whatever the marketplace says, TYM is very committed to produce these machines for internal use if for not other reason. However, future effort will key off of marketplace acceptance. The complete instruction set is there, full addressing is there. A wonderful implementation of the KL map is there. Power, size and cost seem to heavily favor the 26KL. With TYM maint., we can provide the whole thing. [KLH: I asked whether the price could be cut by leaving off the suede leather trim, racing stripes, etc.] Now for costs. certainly a barebones CPU (with 1/2 meg memory) can go for much less than the 300k figure. I will leave that up to the marketing types. Yes, i heard the 250k rumor but when you add everything else, it is easily 600k or more. So we are still 50% of their [KLH: DEC-2060] cost. Hope this helps. Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4-Mar-84 23:36 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien I would contact Cal Peterson for marketing info. I don't have his number here at home but will send it to you later. [KLH: I asked about the status of unbundling TOPS-20 -- not relevant to ITS, but interesting.] As for software on the 26KL, it is a matter of legalese on what TYMCOM-20 is. Certainly TOPS-20 cannot run on the 26KL and TYMCOM-20 cannot run on the DEC equipment. We have very different architecture which means parts of the monitor must be VERy different. however, from the user view, we are as identical as one can be. So what is it?? We claim, with some legal opinion, that TYMCOM-20 is NOT TOPS-20 and hence no licensing is needed by us or our customers. We certain do realize this might not completely dispell the fear of some legal action by DEC so we are trying hard to talk to DEC to clarify all this. TO date they are VERY hardnose. I think everyone agrees they are trying to delay things with the hope we just go away or die. My point of view says this is very short sighted for DEC, bad for their customers, and extremely sad for all those fans of the DEC 36 bit line. I sincerely wish to join forces with DEC and have mutual software develoment for the 36 bit line. DEC can do somethings and TYM can do others. Clearly the DEC 36 bit machines are now in the end of the line phase. If DEC wants to keep its base and hopes to move them onto the DEC 32 bit line, they need to do more. Joining with TYM will be a GIANT step forward. DEC has NO hope to convert those 36 bit sites to VAXen in the next 2 years. Why not hold onto them by letting them use a TYM 26KL. Eventually (if we are to believe DEC) the VAX will be bigger and better and more convenient for a 36 bit to VAX move. As I view it, we are really saving DEC!!!! Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From lars@nocrew.org Wed Oct 25 14:23:36 PDT 2000 Article: 1558 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news2.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.tele.dk!128.39.3.166!uninett.no!newsfeed1.enitel.no!masternews.telia.net!news-sto.telia.net!news.defero.net!junk.nocrew.org!not-for-mail From: lars brinkhoff Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL Organization: NoCrew Laboratories Lines: 176 Sender: lars@junk.nocrew.org Message-ID: <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:28:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.73.17.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@defero.net X-Trace: news.defero.net 971864910 212.73.17.42 (Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:28:30 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:28:30 MET DST Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1558 I found these three letters referring to two Tymshare PDP-10 clones called System 26 and System 26KL. May it be that 26XL of Mark Crispin's posting in http://www.inwap.com/pdp10/usenet/poole (or http://pdp10.nocrew.org/cpu/26xl.1.txt) is a typo? Or is the 26XL another clone, perhaps a follow-up to the 26KL? To confuse the matter further, Joe Smith's PDP-10 page mentions a "X-KL" model: My documents * Tymshare * History * Reunion 1-Jul-2000 * Hardware (KI, KL, X-KL) ^^^^ Also note the reference to TYMCOM-20. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29-Feb-84 01:41 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien Ken, I guess I the right person to ask most of those questions. let me try ... [KLH: Are F2s or F3s still available? What about the newer machines?] The F2 (or F3 as we call it) is no longer made. We have 8 but they are all used at TYM. Some clients some internal users. There are two models of interest relating to F4. System 26 is based on the F4 CPU and runs TENEX. It has ucode that supports the KA instruction set and emulates the KA TENEX map (pager). We have several of these, one is at SRI and one at CECOM in New Jersey (both of these are owned by customer). This model is no longer being made although one might be obtainable in the future. System 26KL is the latest model. It is also based on the F4 CPU but is modified to support the full extended addressing (actually 32 bits hardware-wise but that is not used since TOPS-20 does not use all those bits either). The 26KL has totally different ucode and emulates the KL instruction set including ALL the extended business instruction set. it emulates the KL style map. It runs the TYMCOM-20 operating System which is user identical to the TOPS-20 system. The 26Kl is spec-ed at 2.5 times the KA at the machine instruction level. This seems to be proved out but we are undergoing a big performance push right now and hope to have formal data by spring showing this to be at true. System 26KL is MOST definitely available for leasing or buying. We are gearing up for production of these beasts. There is a strong backing internally to use these machines for internal use in addition to external sales/leases. This provides a built in demand. the cost of a nicely configured system (1 meg memory, a few disks (660 MB), etc.) is about $300,000. You could probably push on that for universities but not sure how much. Yes, we are willing to provide access to ucode but this has yet to be made a firm committment from upper management. The front end (if used in the KL sense) does NOT exists. There is a Console computer that is used for booting and diagnostic work but has no relationship with I/O functions of the mainframe. We have TYMNET but no MILNET yet since we do NOT have the TCP/IP sources for TOPS-20 (can we get that from someone?? we do have a source license for TOPS-20 so I think we are entitled to it). We are anxiously seeking out programmers for both the monitor level work and for ucoding. I have two opening right now. We have hired a few enginerring types to help with manufacturing and for enhancements. I personally would love to have cooperative ventures with universities. Let me know if there is more interest from any quarters. Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-Mar-84 23:47 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien [KLH: I asked for more details on the speed differences...] The 26KL has NO cache and although it is on the list of possible items to do, we currently have NO plans to implement it. You first have to understand why a cache on the 2060 is worth it. The memory cycle time is something like 800 ns so a cache can have a very dramatic effect. The 26KL has a memory cycle time of 350 to 425 depending on how we set some parameters. Right now we can run with no problems at 375 ns. Thus, we feel the cache will NOT provide a significant enhancement of performance as compared to some other ideas. The 26KL instruction speed (running the KL set) varies from lower than the KL (I won't say figures) to higher than the KL. On the average (what ever that means) it seems to come out to about 60% of the KL. Remember this is an instruction set speed comparison. I think the 2060 wins bigger in the I/O due to multiple controllers. Currently two is the max for the 26KL. We have a very nice list of wonderful things we can do with the 26kl to make it much better (VERY likely better than the 2060) but one OVERRIDING factor MUST happen. WE MUST SEE IF THE MARKETPLACE WILL ACCEPT THE 26KL. (basically as is). If not it does not make sense for us to develop it. We are rounding it out now and cleaning it up. It really is there and works. Several are at TYM now. We are very anxious to see the marketplace show interest. It did at the show but that seems to have died off. Very disappointing. (of course you may find fault with the lack of heavy advertising on our part, regretably that is a fact but not sure if that would have changed the situation). Whatever the marketplace says, TYM is very committed to produce these machines for internal use if for not other reason. However, future effort will key off of marketplace acceptance. The complete instruction set is there, full addressing is there. A wonderful implementation of the KL map is there. Power, size and cost seem to heavily favor the 26KL. With TYM maint., we can provide the whole thing. [KLH: I asked whether the price could be cut by leaving off the suede leather trim, racing stripes, etc.] Now for costs. certainly a barebones CPU (with 1/2 meg memory) can go for much less than the 300k figure. I will leave that up to the marketing types. Yes, i heard the 250k rumor but when you add everything else, it is easily 600k or more. So we are still 50% of their [KLH: DEC-2060] cost. Hope this helps. Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4-Mar-84 23:36 PST From: Robert N. Lieberman Subject: Re: Foonly machine & code availability To: Ken Harrenstien I would contact Cal Peterson for marketing info. I don't have his number here at home but will send it to you later. [KLH: I asked about the status of unbundling TOPS-20 -- not relevant to ITS, but interesting.] As for software on the 26KL, it is a matter of legalese on what TYMCOM-20 is. Certainly TOPS-20 cannot run on the 26KL and TYMCOM-20 cannot run on the DEC equipment. We have very different architecture which means parts of the monitor must be VERy different. however, from the user view, we are as identical as one can be. So what is it?? We claim, with some legal opinion, that TYMCOM-20 is NOT TOPS-20 and hence no licensing is needed by us or our customers. We certain do realize this might not completely dispell the fear of some legal action by DEC so we are trying hard to talk to DEC to clarify all this. TO date they are VERY hardnose. I think everyone agrees they are trying to delay things with the hope we just go away or die. My point of view says this is very short sighted for DEC, bad for their customers, and extremely sad for all those fans of the DEC 36 bit line. I sincerely wish to join forces with DEC and have mutual software develoment for the 36 bit line. DEC can do somethings and TYM can do others. Clearly the DEC 36 bit machines are now in the end of the line phase. If DEC wants to keep its base and hopes to move them onto the DEC 32 bit line, they need to do more. Joining with TYM will be a GIANT step forward. DEC has NO hope to convert those 36 bit sites to VAXen in the next 2 years. Why not hold onto them by letting them use a TYM 26KL. Eventually (if we are to believe DEC) the VAX will be bigger and better and more convenient for a 36 bit to VAX move. As I view it, we are really saving DEC!!!! Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From alderson+news@panix.com Wed Oct 25 14:24:03 PDT 2000 Article: 1578 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: Rich Alderson Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL Date: 19 Oct 2000 20:36:15 -0400 Organization: Systems Administration, XKL LLC, Redmond WA 98052 Lines: 25 Sender: alderson+news@panix6.panix.com Message-ID: References: <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 972002175 21925 166.84.0.231 (20 Oct 2000 00:36:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Oct 2000 00:36:15 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1578 lars brinkhoff writes: > To confuse the matter further, Joe Smith's PDP-10 page mentions a "X-KL" > model: > My documents > * Tymshare > * History > * Reunion 1-Jul-2000 > * Hardware (KI, KL, X-KL) > ^^^^ Lars, Tymshare was eventually part of MCI. In 1995, they needed to replace 4 KL10 systems running TYMCOM-X (their highly modified version of Tops-10, made to look like the user interface on a SDS 940). They bought two Toad-1 systems (running Tops-20) from XKL (as in "toad.xkl.com", hmm?) for this purpose. The Toad-1 system has nothing to do with the Foonly products that Tymshare was going to build at one time. -- Rich Alderson alderson+news@panix.com "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." --Death, of the Endless From alderson+news@panix.com Wed Oct 25 14:24:40 PDT 2000 Article: 1643 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: Rich Alderson Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL Date: 24 Oct 2000 18:47:11 -0400 Organization: Systems Administration, XKL LLC, Redmond WA 98052 Lines: 21 Sender: alderson+news@panix3.panix.com Message-ID: References: <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <85lmvkqaq5.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 972427631 16712 166.84.0.228 (24 Oct 2000 22:47:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2000 22:47:11 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1643 lars brinkhoff writes: > By the way, somewhere I saw that mathom.xkl.com used to be a KL, but that > doesn't seem to be true any more. Does XKL still run any KLs? When XKL was founded in 1991, there was only a KL, named Mathom. We continued to run the KL until 1996, when we moved all our work onto Toad-1 systems--what better way to find bugs in the implementation than to put all your business on the line? I renamed the KL Heat and tried to use it for a bit of Tops-10 debugging, but since I did not have a Tops-10 installation tape, I never got very far. We shut the KL down permanently in 1997, and have tried to give it to two museums, but no one has taken it off our hands. The major requirement is that it be *used*, not parted out. It is dismantled and taking up space in the computer room. -- Rich Alderson alderson+news@panix.com "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." --Death, of the Endless From tsuri@earthlink.net Thu Nov 2 11:06:23 PST 2000 Article: 1817 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!europa.netcrusader.net!63.211.125.72!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Subject: Re: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL From: Tsurishaddai Williamson Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Message-ID: References: <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8t7irf$179$1@nntp1.ba.best.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Lines: 48 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:09:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.91.141 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 972958153 165.247.91.141 (Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:09:13 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:09:13 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1817 Maybe the X-KL was that mess of wire-wrap that I wrote a console/diagnostic controller for. I remember the transition from Tymshare to McDonnell Douglas. That was in 1984, not 1986. It was a lot of fun. We replaced the original LISP-based controller with a simple hardware interface to an IBM-XT. I wrote the controller in Turbo Pascal. The neat thing was that the user interface "client" could connect to the diagnostic "server" via a modem. This allowed the engineer in the lab to access the hardware registers at the customer site. We cut the downtime from days to hours as the engineer could quickly determine which board needed to replaced by the on-site techie. It was a mess, all of that wire wrap and bird poo. Don't ask how the bird doody got there. Tsurishaddai Williamson > From: inwap@best.com (Joe Smith) > Organization: Chez Inwap > Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 > Date: 25 Oct 2000 21:20:47 GMT > Subject: Re: Tymshare System 26 and 26KL > > In article <85vguqwiid.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>, > lars brinkhoff wrote: >> I found these three letters referring to two Tymshare PDP-10 clones >> called System 26 and System 26KL. >> >> May it be that 26XL of Mark Crispin's posting in >> http://www.inwap.com/pdp10/usenet/poole >> (or http://pdp10.nocrew.org/cpu/26xl.1.txt) >> is a typo? Or is the 26XL another clone, perhaps a follow-up to the >> 26KL? >> >> To confuse the matter further, Joe Smith's PDP-10 page mentions a "X-KL" >> model: >> My documents >> * Tymshare >> * History >> * Reunion 1-Jul-2000 >> * Hardware (KI, KL, X-KL) >> ^^^^ >> >> Also note the reference to TYMCOM-20. > > To reiterate: > The 26KL was built by Tymshare/McDonnell Douglas around 1986. > The XKL Corporation (now XKL LLC) built the TOAD-1 in the 90's. > -Joe > -- > See http://www.inwap.com/ for PDP-10 and "ReBoot" pages. From eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com Fri Nov 3 11:44:41 PST 2000 Article: 1875 of alt.sys.pdp10 Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: Looking for CUSP tape files for v6.03 References: <8hoH5.62649$bI6.2262607@news1.giganews.com> <8tcasq$kc4@weyl.math.psu.edu> <22jK5.96420$bI6.3525945@news1.giganews.com> <8tqgau$25l0$1@nntp1.ba.best.com> <8trgsq$fcq$2@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 02 Nov 2000 12:25:50 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 44 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 2 Nov 2000 12:30:57 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1875 falconer@best.com (Edward A. Falk) wrote: > * Spawn another thread and let it sleep on the keyboard. > * Only check for keyboard input every 10 or 100 instructions. jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: > Would that last one work for ^C interrupts, though? When > a user types ^C a hundred times, s/he's in panic mode and > wants things to stop right NOW. Even on the real hardware there could easily have been a latency of much more than 100 instructions. In fact, at 9600 bps much more than 100 instructions execute just while the character is being transmitted. Then you have additional sources of latency. The following is a guess as to how the input characters are processed on a KL10. I may be wrong in the details. 1) The DC20-F (DH11) in the front end puts the character into the receive FIFO. There may be other characters ahead of it. 2) The DC20-F requests an interrupt. 3) Sooner or later, the RSX20F interrupt handler is invoked. The interrupt handler accepts the character, puts it in a queue, and wakes up a task. 4) Eventually the task is scheduled. It gets the character, tests whether it is a character requiring special handling (e.g., flow control), and assuming otherwise, uses the DTE20 to write the character (and perhaps some other identifying information) to a queue in the KL10's memory. 5) The task tells the DTE20 to ring the doorbell to get the KL10's memory. 6) Sooner or later, the TOPS-10 or TOPS-20 interrupt handler is invoked. It pulls the character out of the queue and figures out what to do with it. Note that steps 3, 4, and 6 all involve unpredicable latencies that may take hundreds of instructions, depending on the interrupt level of the processor and other factors. On a KS10 the path would actually be simpler, since there isn't another processor between the DZ11 mux and the main processor.