From erin at corliss.com  Mon Jan  5 15:23:23 1998
From: erin at corliss.com (Erin Corliss)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 21:23:23 -0800
Subject: ...
Message-ID: <34B06E4B.20CDBAA@corliss.com>

Hello.  I have a free operating system directory at:

http://rio.com/~zomad

I have a link to the PUPS home page for PDP-11 Unix & was wondering if
you can add a link to my page.




Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA18889
	for pups-liszt; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:40:48 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au  Fri Jan 30 14:40:50 1998
From: wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:40:50 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801300440.PAA04976@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>

Hi all,

	Last year I mentioned the idea of installing PDP-11 UNIX over a
serial line, for those people who have real PDP-11s but no tape drives.

I've written the code to do this over the past few days, and its time to
pass it to someone who actually has a PDP-11 and no tape drive! The code
is of course alpha-quality, but I'm using a PC running John Wilson's Ersatz
to install 7th Edition on a simulated RK05 right now.

I need someone who has a:

	+ PDP-11 which _will_ run 7th Edition
	+ Spare RK05, RP03, RP04, RP05 or RP06 disk
	+ A DL/KL-11 serial port at vector 0176500 (i.e 2nd unit)
	+ An RS-232 null modem with hardware handshaking lines
	+ A machine running a 32-bit Unix to host the other end of the
	  serial connection
	+ Spare time, and a tendency for masochism :-)

Someone who also has a PDP-11 running v7, and a source license would
be a bonus, as they might be able to help with the debugging.

I'm at the point where I can bring in the `boot' file (record 0) off the
simulated UNIX install tape, load and run cat, mkfs, icheck and restor.

I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''),
which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from restor.
My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill the
10,240 request, but still problems.

Once the code is solid, I'd like to add other disks (RL02s etc.), and write
a user-mode program to read from the tape once UNIX has booted off disk.
This will allow other tape formats (e.g tar) to be read in.

If anybody would be willing to participate in getting this stuff to work
well, could they e-mail me next week?!

Thanks in advance,

	Warren	wkt at cs.adfa.oz.au

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA20201
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:46:41 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From allisonp at world.std.com  Sat Jan 31 00:46:31 1998
From: allisonp at world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:46:31 -0500
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801301446.AA19117@world.std.com>


<I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''
<which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from resto
<My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill th
<10,240 request, but still problems.

Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer.  This was
a common problem on TU58s hooked to the 2nd DL on some systems at speeds
above either 4800 or 9600.  It only happend in the TU58 to host direction
(read) as the opposite path expected a handshake every 128 bytes(to allow 
the tu58 to actually do the write to tape).  It seems the tu58 would send 
a 512byte block as 4 128byte packets at a sustained rate fast enough to 
overrun the PDP-11 host input buffer; before it could be emptied.  You 
may be emulating a similar problem.  PCs do not service interrupts all 
that fast and OS overhead can make that longer.

Note PDP-11s can have enough overhead and higher priority stuff ahead of 
the 2nd DL that it cannot take data at greater than 4800 baud (sustained 
rate) without some kind of handshake to allow processing in between.
If the system is basically unloaded like my minimal 11/23 it can run at 
38.4!  The most likely time when this overrun can happen is while doing 
processing to write (via file system) to disk and recieving data at the 
same time.

Allison


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA21620
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:06:40 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au  Sat Jan 31 08:06:42 1998
From: wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:06:42 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
In-Reply-To: <199801301446.AA19117@world.std.com> from Allison J Parent at "Jan 30, 98 09:46:31 am"
Message-ID: <199801302206.JAA07375@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>

In article by Allison J Parent:
> 
> <I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''
> <which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from resto
> <My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill th
> <10,240 request, but still problems.
> 
> Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer. 

I found the problem - my dump image was corrupt :-). I now have a clean
v7 dump of /, and there are no complaints from restor.

I've had a few people volunteer to try out the code. I'll clean it up,
finish off the docs, and put it up for ftp in a few days, with an email
on the PUPS mailing list on how to retrieve it.

Cheers,
	Warren

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22547
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:52:16 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From sms at moe.2bsd.com  Sat Jan 31 15:36:05 1998
From: sms at moe.2bsd.com (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801310536.VAA23209@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi -

	I thought I'd chime in with my experience with "high" speed serial
	transfers...

> From: allisonp at world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
> 
> Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer.  This was
> a common problem on TU58s hooked to the 2nd DL on some systems at speeds
> above either 4800 or 9600.  It only happend in the TU58 to host direction

	The TU58's lack of flow control (unless you were on the Vax-750 with
	something I believed was called the MRSP roms) made them all but
	useless except in a 'standalone' environment.  As a boot device they
	were just "slower than molasses in January".  As a data storage device
	to be used while the system was up and doing other stuff the TU58 was
	quite poor.

	I tried to use the TU58 on an 11/44 once and it just wouldn't work
	reliably when trying to transfer a file from TU58 to disk.  The first
	time the system had to tape a couple milliseconds to write a block to
	disk you had a DL11 overrun and the transfer was corrupt.

> (read) as the opposite path expected a handshake every 128 bytes(to allow 
> the tu58 to actually do the write to tape).  It seems the tu58 would send 
> a 512byte block as 4 128byte packets at a sustained rate fast enough to 
> overrun the PDP-11 host input buffer; before it could be emptied.  You 

	The DL-11 to which the TU58 was attached (could it be hooked up to
	something a bit better?  I would think so but don't know for sure)
	had no buffering/silo - at 9600 there was only 1 millisecond to get
	the character and that's cutting things a bit too fine on a ~.5 mips
	machine, especially if other things are going on at the same time.

> may be emulating a similar problem.  PCs do not service interrupts all 
> that fast and OS overhead can make that longer.

	Ummm, 'PC's I'm used to don't seem terribly upset at 10 or 20 thousand
	interrupts per second - that should be sufficient to handle any 9600
	baud serial line I'd think.

> Note PDP-11s can have enough overhead and higher priority stuff ahead of 
> the 2nd DL that it cannot take data at greater than 4800 baud (sustained 

	Not 'overhead' as much as just 'slowness'.  An 11/44 is about .6 mips
	(an 11/73 is about 15% less) - that's quite a bit less than even a
	286.

	The biggest problem I ran into was the fact that the disk systems
	all used SPL-5 while the serial ports (DL11,etc) were at 4.  A disk
	interrupt would (and did) come in and would delay things just enough
	that the DL running at 9600 with no flow control would overrun.

> rate) without some kind of handshake to allow processing in between.
> If the system is basically unloaded like my minimal 11/23 it can run at 
> 38.4!  The most likely time when this overrun can happen is while doing 

	If it's not doing too much else.  I don't see an 11/xx handling high
	serial line rates without some form of RTS/CTS flowcontrol while a
	kernel recompile is going on ;-)  If you're using a DHV-11 the
	data flow rate is quite a bit less than 38.4k - the bit timings are
	that fast but the board can't handle it and the effective rate is
	lower.  A DHQ-11 is quite a bit better but all in all anything over
	9600 requires hardware flow control, especially if the data has to
	make its way to disk.

	Steven Schultz


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA24275
	for pups-liszt; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:19:03 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From erin at corliss.com  Mon Jan  5 15:23:23 1998
From: erin at corliss.com (Erin Corliss)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 21:23:23 -0800
Subject: ...
Message-ID: <34B06E4B.20CDBAA@corliss.com>

Hello.  I have a free operating system directory at:

http://rio.com/~zomad

I have a link to the PUPS home page for PDP-11 Unix & was wondering if
you can add a link to my page.




Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA18889
	for pups-liszt; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:40:48 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au  Fri Jan 30 14:40:50 1998
From: wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:40:50 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801300440.PAA04976@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>

Hi all,

	Last year I mentioned the idea of installing PDP-11 UNIX over a
serial line, for those people who have real PDP-11s but no tape drives.

I've written the code to do this over the past few days, and its time to
pass it to someone who actually has a PDP-11 and no tape drive! The code
is of course alpha-quality, but I'm using a PC running John Wilson's Ersatz
to install 7th Edition on a simulated RK05 right now.

I need someone who has a:

	+ PDP-11 which _will_ run 7th Edition
	+ Spare RK05, RP03, RP04, RP05 or RP06 disk
	+ A DL/KL-11 serial port at vector 0176500 (i.e 2nd unit)
	+ An RS-232 null modem with hardware handshaking lines
	+ A machine running a 32-bit Unix to host the other end of the
	  serial connection
	+ Spare time, and a tendency for masochism :-)

Someone who also has a PDP-11 running v7, and a source license would
be a bonus, as they might be able to help with the debugging.

I'm at the point where I can bring in the `boot' file (record 0) off the
simulated UNIX install tape, load and run cat, mkfs, icheck and restor.

I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''),
which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from restor.
My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill the
10,240 request, but still problems.

Once the code is solid, I'd like to add other disks (RL02s etc.), and write
a user-mode program to read from the tape once UNIX has booted off disk.
This will allow other tape formats (e.g tar) to be read in.

If anybody would be willing to participate in getting this stuff to work
well, could they e-mail me next week?!

Thanks in advance,

	Warren	wkt at cs.adfa.oz.au

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA20201
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:46:41 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From allisonp at world.std.com  Sat Jan 31 00:46:31 1998
From: allisonp at world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:46:31 -0500
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801301446.AA19117@world.std.com>


<I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''
<which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from resto
<My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill th
<10,240 request, but still problems.

Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer.  This was
a common problem on TU58s hooked to the 2nd DL on some systems at speeds
above either 4800 or 9600.  It only happend in the TU58 to host direction
(read) as the opposite path expected a handshake every 128 bytes(to allow 
the tu58 to actually do the write to tape).  It seems the tu58 would send 
a 512byte block as 4 128byte packets at a sustained rate fast enough to 
overrun the PDP-11 host input buffer; before it could be emptied.  You 
may be emulating a similar problem.  PCs do not service interrupts all 
that fast and OS overhead can make that longer.

Note PDP-11s can have enough overhead and higher priority stuff ahead of 
the 2nd DL that it cannot take data at greater than 4800 baud (sustained 
rate) without some kind of handshake to allow processing in between.
If the system is basically unloaded like my minimal 11/23 it can run at 
38.4!  The most likely time when this overrun can happen is while doing 
processing to write (via file system) to disk and recieving data at the 
same time.

Allison


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA21620
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:06:40 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au  Sat Jan 31 08:06:42 1998
From: wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:06:42 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
In-Reply-To: <199801301446.AA19117@world.std.com> from Allison J Parent at "Jan 30, 98 09:46:31 am"
Message-ID: <199801302206.JAA07375@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>

In article by Allison J Parent:
> 
> <I get some error messages with restor (``Missing address (header) block''
> <which I believe are to do with the 10,240 byte record requests from resto
> <My code expects 512-byte requests, and I'm doing 20 a time to fulfill th
> <10,240 request, but still problems.
> 
> Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer. 

I found the problem - my dump image was corrupt :-). I now have a clean
v7 dump of /, and there are no complaints from restor.

I've had a few people volunteer to try out the code. I'll clean it up,
finish off the docs, and put it up for ftp in a few days, with an email
on the PUPS mailing list on how to retrieve it.

Cheers,
	Warren

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22547
	for pups-liszt; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:52:16 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

From sms at moe.2bsd.com  Sat Jan 31 15:36:05 1998
From: sms at moe.2bsd.com (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Installing PDP-11 UNIX w. no tape - solution
Message-ID: <199801310536.VAA23209@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi -

	I thought I'd chime in with my experience with "high" speed serial
	transfers...

> From: allisonp at world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
> 
> Try slowing down.  You may be overflowing the input buffer.  This was
> a common problem on TU58s hooked to the 2nd DL on some systems at speeds
> above either 4800 or 9600.  It only happend in the TU58 to host direction

	The TU58's lack of flow control (unless you were on the Vax-750 with
	something I believed was called the MRSP roms) made them all but
	useless except in a 'standalone' environment.  As a boot device they
	were just "slower than molasses in January".  As a data storage device
	to be used while the system was up and doing other stuff the TU58 was
	quite poor.

	I tried to use the TU58 on an 11/44 once and it just wouldn't work
	reliably when trying to transfer a file from TU58 to disk.  The first
	time the system had to tape a couple milliseconds to write a block to
	disk you had a DL11 overrun and the transfer was corrupt.

> (read) as the opposite path expected a handshake every 128 bytes(to allow 
> the tu58 to actually do the write to tape).  It seems the tu58 would send 
> a 512byte block as 4 128byte packets at a sustained rate fast enough to 
> overrun the PDP-11 host input buffer; before it could be emptied.  You 

	The DL-11 to which the TU58 was attached (could it be hooked up to
	something a bit better?  I would think so but don't know for sure)
	had no buffering/silo - at 9600 there was only 1 millisecond to get
	the character and that's cutting things a bit too fine on a ~.5 mips
	machine, especially if other things are going on at the same time.

> may be emulating a similar problem.  PCs do not service interrupts all 
> that fast and OS overhead can make that longer.

	Ummm, 'PC's I'm used to don't seem terribly upset at 10 or 20 thousand
	interrupts per second - that should be sufficient to handle any 9600
	baud serial line I'd think.

> Note PDP-11s can have enough overhead and higher priority stuff ahead of 
> the 2nd DL that it cannot take data at greater than 4800 baud (sustained 

	Not 'overhead' as much as just 'slowness'.  An 11/44 is about .6 mips
	(an 11/73 is about 15% less) - that's quite a bit less than even a
	286.

	The biggest problem I ran into was the fact that the disk systems
	all used SPL-5 while the serial ports (DL11,etc) were at 4.  A disk
	interrupt would (and did) come in and would delay things just enough
	that the DL running at 9600 with no flow control would overrun.

> rate) without some kind of handshake to allow processing in between.
> If the system is basically unloaded like my minimal 11/23 it can run at 
> 38.4!  The most likely time when this overrun can happen is while doing 

	If it's not doing too much else.  I don't see an 11/xx handling high
	serial line rates without some form of RTS/CTS flowcontrol while a
	kernel recompile is going on ;-)  If you're using a DHV-11 the
	data flow rate is quite a bit less than 38.4k - the bit timings are
	that fast but the board can't handle it and the effective rate is
	lower.  A DHQ-11 is quite a bit better but all in all anything over
	9600 requires hardware flow control, especially if the data has to
	make its way to disk.

	Steven Schultz


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA24275
	for pups-liszt; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:19:03 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f

