SunRPC, among other protocols, needs transaction IDs (XIDs) to distinguish
RPCs.For SunRPC, it's important that XIDs not be reused (not for all
protocols; 9p has no such requirement). Stateless protocols like NFS and
reused XIDs can get messy.
There is a vague, 30 year old memory, I have, that at some point SPARC got
a time register, or some other register, that always provided a different
answer each time it was read, even if read back to back, in part to enable
creation of non-reused XIDs. Note that things like the TSC or RISC-V MTIME
register make no such guarantee.
I am pretty sure someone here can fill me in, or tell me I'm wrong, about
my SPARC memory.
thanks
Rather than increase subject drift on a thread I started
"UNIX on (not quite bare) System/370", here's a new thread.
Since the TUHS archive seems to now include documentation,
I decided to take a look and see if the earliest UNIX manual I have
is in the archive:
It was given to me by a friend at Stevens Tech in Hoboken NJ (c. 1980)
who had graduated, and worked for AT&T.
It's hole punched for a four ring binder
(I found an unused Bell System Project Telstar binder to put it in).
The cover page has:
Upper left corner:
Bell Telephone Laboratories Incorperated
PROGRAM APPLICATION INSTRUCTION
Upper right corner:
PA-1C300-01
Section 1
Issue 1, January 1976
AT&TCo SPCS
Center:
UNIX PROGRAMMER'S MANUAL
Program Generic PG-1C300 Issue 2
Published by the UNIX Support Group
January, 1976
The preface starts with:
This document is published as part of the UNIX Operating System Program Generic,
PG-1C300 Issue 2. The development of the Program Generic is the result of the
efforts of the members of the UNIX Support Group, supervised by J.F. Maranzano
and composed of: R. B. Brant, J. Feder, C. D. Perez. T. M. Raleigh, R. E. Swift,
G. C. Vogel and I. A. Winheim.
and ends with
For corrections and comments please contact C. D. Perez, MH 2C-423, Extension
6041.
Not knowing who else I could ask, I brought it to a Boston Usenix (in
the 90's or oughts), and asked DMR if he could identify it. He said
it was an early supported UNIX, and he signed the preface page for me.
The manual has sections I through VIII; all manual pages start with page -1-
I found https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/unix_program_description_ja…
with cover page:
UNIX PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Program Generic PG-1C300 Issue 2
Published by the UNIX Support Group
January 1976
contents:
NUMBER ISSUE TITLE
PD-1C301-01 1 Operating System
PD-1C302-01 1 Device Drivers Section 1
PD-1C303-01 1 Device Drivers Section 2
And consists of descriptions of kernel functions.
So it seems likely that my manual is a companion to that.
I have a Brother printer/scanner, but the paper is fragile, so unless
it's of immediate and burning value to someone, it's unlikely to rise
to the top of my ever-static list of documents to scan....
But if someone has specific questions I can look up, let me know....
Hi,
I've found myself wondering about partitions inside of BSD disk labels.
Specifically, when and where was the convention that "a" is root, "b" is
swap, etc?
I also understand the "c" partition to be the entire disk, unless it
isn't, at which point it's the entire slice (BIOS / MBR partition)
containing the BSD disklabel and "d" is the entire disk.
I also found something last night that indicated that OpenBSD uses disk
labels somewhat differently than FreeBSD.
Aside: This is one of the dangers of wondering how something curious
came to be and why it came to be when working on 10-15 year old FreeBSD
systems.
--
Grant. . . .
Disk sections (I don't think anyone in Research called them
partitions--certainly the Research manuals didn't) were
originally defined in the device driver, not by data on the
disk. In those days, system management included recompiling
stuff, including the OS kernel, and it was not unusual for
sites to edit hp.c or whatnot to adjust things to local
preference.
There was nothing magic about the mapping between device
names and minor device numbers either; the system came with
certain conventions on the original tape, but it was not
at all uncommon to change them.
By the time I arrived at the first Unix site I ever helped
run, in a physics group at Caltech, we already used a different
naming convention: a BSD-like ddNs, where dd was a driver
name, N the physical drive unit number, s a section letter.
I don't know whether that was borrowed from BSD (it must have
started during the 3BSD era, since I started there in mid-1980
and 4BSD appears to have been released late in that year).
Looking at my archival copy of that much-locally-hacked
source tree, I see that we later moved the definitions of
all the disk-section tables to a single file compiled at
system-configuration time (we used a USG-like scheme that
compiled most of the system into libraries, rather than
compiling every file separately for each target system a
la V7 and BSD). That simplified handling our somewhat-
complicated disk topology: all but system disks were connected
through System Industries 9400 disk controllers, which were
a neat design (each controller could interface to as many as
four hosts and four disks) but in practice were not always
reliable. On one hand, we arranged for one disk to be used
in parts by our main time-sharing VAX and a subsidiary PDP-11/45,
making the 11/45 cheaper to keep around; on the other, the
main VAX had two paths to each of its disks, through different
SI controllers, so when an SI controller conked out we could
run without it until the service guys fixed it. (Each disk
was dual-ported, as was common in the SMD world, hence
connected to two controllers.)
Reliability took rather more work in those days.
A different data point: by the time I moved from California
to New Jersey and joined 1127, Research was also using a
different naming scheme for disk sections. By then the
internal naming convention was e.g. ra17 for physical unit
1, section 7; by further convention 7 (the highest-numbered
section). At some point a little later we added an ioctl
to set the starting block and size of a particular section
on a particular drive, but we never went to having the OS
itself try to find a label and trust its contents (something
that still makes the 1980s part of me feel a little creepy,
though 21st century me has come to terms with it).
Norman Wilson
Certified old fart
Toronto ON
In S.S. Pirzada's 1988 paper[1], page 35, section 3.3.2, he writes:
"Some operating telephone companies and the switching control center system (SCCS) group in Holmdel, NJ decided to use UNIX to collect maintenance data from their switches and for administration purposes. Other departments also started building applications on top of UNIX, some part of turnkey systems licensed by Western Electric (WECo)."
This is describing the situation before the establishment of USG in September 1973. I'm curious, does anyone recall what some of these pre-USG WECo "turnkey systems" were?
The things that come to mind when I think of that phrase don't come about for several years, such as the 5ESS and other work surrounding Bellmac stuff. The SCCS UNIX connection describes what becomes CB-UNIX if I understand the situation correctly, but that stays a bit afield from the more conventional pool that is dipped into for WECo needs. Switching and UNIX all kinda come back together with DMERT on 1A/3B-API and 5ESS, but again that's late 70s R&D, early 80s deployment, not this time period, leaving me terribly curious what WECo would've been bundling UNIX with and shipping out to telcos. The famous early use of UNIX in the Bell System is typography, and WECo did have involvement with Teletype equipment, so perhaps something along those lines?
If it helps set the scene, a binder I recently picked up from ~1972 describing Western Electric test sets distributed to telcos describes the following additional classes of such documents:
Shop Services - Special non-standard products
Public Telephones - System standard public telephone equipment
Data Communications - Teletypewriter and Data Sets
Subscriber Products - System standard PBX's, station equipment and special services
Non-Subscriber Products - Microwave, cable, power equipment, etc.
Non-Bell Equipment Index - Non-Bell System manufactured communication equipment
Unfortunately haven't seen any of the other binders yet but I've been keeping an eye out, one or another might describe something WECo was shipping around that had some UNIX up in it. Nothing in this binder seems computer-y enough to run an operating system, just lots of gauges, dials, and probes. Luckily it is quite clear what data test sets are designed for 103-data set maintenance so I have fodder for seeking Dataphone tools...
Anywho, happy soon to be new year folks, I'm excited to see what turns up next year!
- Matt G.
[1] - https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/7942/1/Shamim_Sharfuddin_Pi…
Hi. I am trying to compile cron for the 3b2-400 and 3b2-700
and am apparently missing required libraries. The reason is
on the 3b2-400 after boot up it complains there is corruption
in the crontab for every user lp, sysadm, root and so on.
# make cron
cc -O cron.c -o cron
undefined first referenced
symbol in file
el_add cron.o
el_delete cron.o
el_empty cron.o
el_first cron.o
el_init cron.o
xmalloc cron.o
el_remove cron.o
num cron.o
days_in_mon cron.o
days_btwn cron.o
ld fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to cron
*** Error code 13
Stop.
Does anyone have these libraries? Thanks.
--
WWL 📚
As I messed with making a custom cron in the late 80s,
remembered the the el_ functions are for event list processing.
But you didn't specify the source of your source, by the hardware
it needs to be of System V heritage. And a lot of that source is hard
to offically come by due to licensing. Good way to view old SVR4 is
to look at OpenIndiana, Illumos, or OpenSolaris code bases that you can
find. You're in luck, as TUHS has a copy, see -- https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=OpenSolaris_b135/cmd/cron/elm.c
Look at the Makefile for the other files you need to compile into it too.
-Brian
KenUnix wrote:
> Hi. I am trying to compile cron for the 3b2-400 and 3b2-700
> and am apparently missing required libraries. The reason is
> on the 3b2-400 after boot up it complains there is corruption
> in the crontab for every user lp, sysadm, root and so on.
>
> # make cron
> cc -O cron.c -o cron
> undefined first referenced
> symbol in file
> el_add cron.o
> el_delete cron.o
> el_empty cron.o
> el_first cron.o
> el_init cron.o
> xmalloc cron.o
> el_remove cron.o
> num cron.o
> days_in_mon cron.o
> days_btwn cron.o
> ld fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to cron
> *** Error code 13
>
> Stop.
Good time of day folks, I often ponder on people's attachments to pixels on the screen that come about by clicking *this* icon and typing in a box surrounded by blue and with an icon in position <xyz> vs pixels on the screen that come about instead by opening that application that is a black border with a little paper airplane button in the bottom right vs....etc.
To make it more clear, I find myself often confused at people treating email different from SMS different from social media DMs different from forum posts different from some other mechanism that like literally all the others is pixels arranged into glyphs on a screen conveying an approximation of human speech. This difference among these different ways to send said pixels to people has eluded me all my life despite working with technology since I was a tot.
What this has me curious on is if in the early days of UNIX there were attempts at suggesting which provided communication mechanisms were appropriate for what. For instance something that smells of:
It is appropriate to use mail(1) to send a review of a piece of work vs it is appropriate to use write(1) to ask Jim if he wants to take a lunch break before the big meeting. Did this matter to people back then like it seems to now? To me it's just pixels on a screen that are there when I look at them and aren't when I don't.
Truth be told I am hoping to learn something from this because I only do a couple email lists and web forums, my social life generally does not involve SMS, phone calls, nor social media. Where it has become tedious is someone I meet who seems to want to communicate over pixels on screens is then put off when I provide them an email address, usually asking instead if I have a Facebook or whatever the kids are calling Twitters today. The few times I've tried to explain email will be me transmitting you communication as pixel glyphs on a screen just like anything else would be me transmitting you communication as pixel glyphs on the screen, this doesn't diffuse their concerns any, they then just think there is something wrong with me for comparing words as pixels on a screen to words as pixels on a screen. Granted, I've probably avoided plenty of vapid people this way, but it feels like it's becoming more and more expected that "these pixels on the screen in *this* program are only for this and those pixels on the screen in *that* program are only for that".
Is this a recent phenomenon? Has communication over electronic means always had these arbitrary limitations hoisted on it by the humans that use it? Or did people not give a hoot what you sent over what program and actually cared more about the words you're saying than the word you typed at a terminal to then be able to transmit words? I doubt what I learn is going to royally change my approach to allowing technology in my irl social life, but it would be nice to at least have more mental ammo when someone asks to be friends online and then gives me mad sideeye when I go "sure here's my email address!"
- Matt G.
