TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6 participants
6532 discussions

by norman＠oclsc.org

what about using another minor device? Is xp0d mapped elsewhere? Since it's a BSD, won't it try by default to read a partition table from the first few sectors of the disk? Norman Wilson Toronto ON

10 years, 5 months

2.9BSD on an actual rl02 - swap confusion

by Jacob Ritorto

Hi, I'm having trouble understanding how to get my swap configured. Since rl02s are so little, the MAKE file in /dev doesn't partition them into a, b, c, etc. However, when MAKE makes the /dev/rl0 device, it uses only 8500 of its 10000 blocks, so what would presumably be intended as swap space does exist. Swap is usually linked to the b partition, right? So how do I create this b partition on an rl02? Or am I getting this horribly wrong? thx jake

10 years, 5 months

mkfs somewhere else?

by Jacob Ritorto

Hi, I'm running 2.9BSD on a pdp11/34 with an Emulex sc21 controller to some Fuji160 disks. Booting with root on RL02 for now, but want to eventually have the whole system on the Fujis and disconnect the rl02s. While the previous owner of the disks appears to have suffered a headcrash near cylinder 0, I'm having an impressive degree of success writing to other parts of the disk. However, when I try to mkfs, I can see the heads trying to write on the headcrashed part of the disk. (Nice having those plexiglass covers!) Is there a way to tell mkfs (or perhaps some other program) to not try to write on the damaged cylinders? thx jake

10 years, 5 months

Version 5 Manual

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

So, I have a chance to buy a copy of a Version 5 manual, but it will be a lot. I looked, and the Version 5 manual doesn't appear to be online. So while normally at the price this is at, I would pass, it might be worth it for me to buy it, and scan it to make it available. But, I looked in the "FAQ on the Unix Archive and Unix on the PDP-11", and it says: 5th Edition has its on-line manual pages missing. ... Fortunately, we do have paper copies of all the research editions of UNIX from 1st to 7th Edition, and these will be scanned in and OCR'd. Several questions: First, when it says "we do have paper copies of all the research editions of UNIX", I assume it means 'we do have paper copies of _the manuals for_ all the research editions of UNIX', not 'we do have paper copies of _the source code for_ all the research editions of UNIX'? Second, if it is 'manuals', did the scan/OCR thing ever happen, or is it likely to anytime in the moderate future (next couple of years)? Third, would a scanned (which I guess we could OCR) version of this manual be of much use (it would not, after all, be the NROFF source, although probably a lot of the commands will be identical to the V6 ones, for which we do have the NROFF)? Advice, please? Thanks! Noel

10 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] sync; sync; sync; halt (was: Re: Illumos ))

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo > There was no fancy I/O order juggling, so everything was written in the > same chronological order as it was scheduled. > ... > What this means is that the second sync, by waiting for its own > superblock writes, will wait until all the inode and file data flushes > scheduled by the first one have completed. Ah, I'm not sure this is correct. Not all disk drivers handled requests in a 'first-come, first-served' order (i.e. where a request for block X, which was scheduled before a request for block Y, actually happened before the operation on block Y). It all depends on the particular driver; some drivers (e.g. the RP driver) re-organized the waiting request queue to optimize head motion, using a so-called 'elevator algorithm'. (PS: For a good time, do "dd if=/dev/[large_partition] of=/dev/null" on a running system with such a disk, and a lot of users on - the system will apparently come to a screeching halt while the 'up' pass on the disk completes... I found this out the hard way, needless to say! :-) Since the root block is block 1 in the partition, one might think that even with an elevator algorithm, this would tend to guarantee that doing it would more or less guarantee that all other pending operations would have completed (since it could only happen at the end of 'down' pass); _but_ the elevator algorithm is in terms of actual physical block numbers, so blocks in another lower partition might still remain to be written. But now that I think about it a bit, if such blocks existed, that partition's super-block would also need to be written, so when that one completed, the disk queue would be empty. But the point remains - because there's no guarantee of _overall_ disk operation ordering in V6, scheduling a disk request and waiting for it to complete does not guarantee that all previously-requested disk operations will have completed before it does. I really think the whole triple-sync thing is mythology. Look through the V6 documentation and although IIRC there are instructions on how to shut the system down, it's not mentioned. We certainly never used it at MIT (and I still don't), and I've never seen a problem with disk corruption _when the system was deliberately shut down_. Noel

10 years, 5 months

Illumos )

by Larry McVoy

Yo Jacob, I'm ex-sun but I don't know too much about Illumos. Care to give us the summary of why I might care about it? On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:16:00AM -0500, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > Hey, thanks, Derrik. > I don't mess with Linux much (kind of an Illumos junkie by trade ;), but > I bet gcc would. I did out of curiosity do it with the Macintosh cc (Apple > LLVM version 5.1 (clang-503.0.40) (based on LLVM 3.4svn)) and it throws > warnings about our not type-defining functions because you're apparently > supposed to do this explicitly these days, but it dutifully goes on to > assume int and compiles our test K&R stuff mostly fine. It does > unfortunately balk pretty badly at the naked returns we initially had, > though. Wish it didn't because it strikes me as being beautifully simple.. > > thx again for the encouragement! > jake > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Derrik Walker v2.0 <dwalker(a)doomd.net> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-12-31 at 00:44 -0500, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > > > > > > > > P.S. if anyone's bored enough, you can check out what we're up to at > > > https://github.com/srphtygr/dhb. I'm trying to get my 11yo kid to > > > spend a little time programming rather than just playing video games > > > when he's near a computer. He'a actually getting through this stuff > > > and is honestly interested when he understands it and sees it work -- > > > and he even spotted a bug before me this afternoon! Feel free to > > > raise issues, pull requests, etc. if you like -- I'm putting him > > > through the git committing and pair programming paces, so outside > > > interaction would be kinda fun :) > > > > > > > > > P.P.S. We're actually using 2.11bsd after all.. > > > > > I'm curious, will gcc on a modern Linux system compile K&R c? > > > > Maybe when I get a little time, I might try to see if I can compile it > > on a modern Fedora 21 system with gcc. > > > > BTW: Great job introducing him to such a classic environment. A few > > years ago, my now 18 year old had expressed some interest in graphics > > programming and was in awe over an SGI O2 I had at the time, so I got > > him an Indy. He played around with a bit of programming, but > > unfortunately, he lost interest. > > > > - Derrik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm

10 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Less -- was Termcap vs terminfo

by Doug McIlroy

> when you - say - run less to display a file, it switches to a dedicated > region in the terminal memory buffer while printing its output, then > restores the buffer to back where you were to begin with when you exit > the pager Sorry for veering away from Unix history, but this pushed one of the hottest of my buttons. Less is the epitome of modern Unix decadence. Besides the maddening behavior described above, why, when all screens have a scroll bar, should a pager do its own scrolling? But for a quantitative measure of decadence, try less --help | wc. It takes excess to a level not dreamed of in Pike's classic critique, "cat -v considered harmful". Doug

10 years, 5 months

SVN of CSRG Releases

by Warren Toomey

Hi all, I came across this last week: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ It's a Subversion VCS of all the CSRG releases. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here before. Cheers, Warren

10 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Termcap vs terminfo

by David Barto

<much discussion about quadratic search removed> All I remember (and still support to this day) is that I’ve got a TERMCAP=‘string’ in my login scripts to set termcap to the specific terminal I’m logging in with. Long ago this made things much faster. Today I think that it is just a holdover that I’m not changing due to inertia, rather than any real need for it. David — David Barto david(a)kdbarto.org

10 years, 5 months

Fixed Unix v5 bug!

by Mark Longridge

> Noel Chiappa > The change is pretty minor: in this piece of code: > > case reboot: > termall(); > execl(init, minus, 0); > reset(); > > just change the execl() line to say: > > execl(init, init, 0); I patched init in v5 and now ps shows /etc/init as expected, even after going from multi to single to multi mode. Looks like init.c was the same in v5 and v6.

10 years, 6 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS