TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6420 discussions

Re: [TUHS] Redoing "V6on286" or porting V7...?

by Peter Jeremy

On 2005-Nov-14 10:45:13 -0500, Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> wrote: >> This is fairly wasteful of RAM. Keep in mind that V6 cannot page - >> a process is either entirely in memory or entirely on disk. If you >> limit yourself to 640K RAM, you are probably restricting yourself >> to about 6 resident processes. And swapping means moving 64K of >> data to/from disk. > >true, but your numbers are a bit off. 640k / 64k = 10 not 6. I realise that. > the kernel will take only 2, so you should have 8. I was assuming split I+D, with the data segment fixed at 64K. This means that you have (64K + code) per process. If you have code plus data in 64K then you can fit more, but I think that was getting to be a squeeze even on V6. (And would definitely write off something like 2BSD). >the mit x86 stuff would be where i'd start. i haven't looked to see >if you need to tweak the assignment operators to avoid having >to s/=+/+=/, but it might already be done. Given an open-source compiler, it would be fairly easy to retrofit the =+ operators into the lexer. (Probably easier than cleaning up the code). The alternative is to start with something later (eg 2BSD) but code quality then becomes far more of an issue (because 2BSD tends to push the I-space limits in lots of areas). >it's all 16 bit stuff: port of PCC, assembler and loader. The x86 instruction set and registers are nothing like as regular and orthogonal as the PDP-11. In particular, there are _no_ general purpose registers - every register has has a particular purpose and either you need to do data-flow analysis to work out what register to load something into, or you (basically) give up and load from memory as needed. You could port PCC but this would be much more difficult than (say) a M68K port. You'd probably need a fairly decent peep-hole optimiser to get good results. Wesley Parish mentioned bcc and OpenWatcom. I looked into the former and it's probably the best starting point (though, with due respect to BDE, the code it generates could be better). Assuming that Unix fits into the C subset implemented by bcc, you'd be better off spending the effort on improving bcc than porting PCC. At the time I looked, OpenWatcom was either still vapourware or not self-hosting. >an enjoyable discussion. wish i had time to work on it. Agreed. -- Peter Jeremy This email may contain privileged/confidential information. You may not copy or disclose this email to anyone without the written permission of the sender. If you have received this email in error please kindly delete this message and notify the sender. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily the opinions of the employer. This email and any attached files should be scanned to detect viruses. No liability will be accepted by the employer for loss or damage (whether caused by negligence or not) as a result of email transmission.

19 years, 2 months

Redoing "V6on286" or porting V7...?

by Lyrical Nanoha

I've thought, since there doesn't seem to be a working "V6on286", maybe I should try porting it myself though I'm not very familiar with the Ancient Unix sources or with the ancient C used. The oldest compiler I've got that will compile is Turbo C++ 1.01 from 1990 and it's an ANSI C compiler. (I do think it'll compile late K&R, but there's weirdnesses in the C used by V6.) Having an emulator like QEMU handy is a nice plus. I could prolly build everything onto a 1.44 MB disk image and boot it in emulation. I'm thinking I'd want to create tools for transferring files into and out of disk images, and a bootloader to put on the first sector of the disk (though, 512 bytes is awful small...) Any ideas? -uso.

19 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] Redoing "V6on286" or porting V7...?

by Norman Wilson

Brantley Coile: i don't know that it's a squese. a version of v6 ran on an lsi-11 with very little ram. ======= If you're thinking of Mini-UNIX, it's a bit of a stretch to call it `V6 running on an LSI-11.' I think the original LSI-11 had no memory management; in any case, Mini-UNIX didn't use it, but was a throwback to the early days of the PDP-7 and the 11/20 (neither of which had memory management). Only one process could be in memory at a time; to let another process run meant swapping the first completely out of memory. I believe there's a paper in the 1978 all-UNIX issue of the Bell Systems Technical Journal about Mini-UNIX or its immediate predecessor. As I recall, there were additional compromises; e.g. the shell quietly translated a | b to a >tempfile; b <tempfile; rm tempfile because that was much faster than the thrashing that often resulted from trying to let a and b run concurrently. Mini-UNIX might be a simpler starting point to get a system running on a 286. Just don't think of it as full V6; it's not. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

19 years, 2 months

What UNIX on a PDP-11/34 ?

by asbesto

Hi all, here at freaknet medialab we made some images of our RL02 disk packs with RT-11 and GAMMA-11 software (specific for a Nuclear Camera, this pdp-11 was used for medical exams) :) those images are very funny, we can use them under simh emulator! :) So, now that we have the backups, we're wondering about installing UNIX in this pdp11/34. what can we install? any hint ? please help! :) p.s. something about our restoration and the disk image of our rt-11 system is online at http://zaverio.net/pdp11, under the "stuff" directory. :) -- [ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ http://www.emergelab.org :: NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LE ACCENTATE ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]

19 years, 2 months

UNIX and relatives and SSH

by Jose R Valverde

Sorry for my previous aborted message. I'm using webmail which is an alien sort of thing to me. What I wanted to say is that you may as well let them 'telnet' to the PDP11-2.11BSD through SSH. I mean, you may have the PDP behind a firewall with all ports blocked, and another machine (linux, *bsd, whatever) with SSH open. Then all that would be needed is that your friend uses an SSH tunnel to the telnet port of the PDP. For instance, let's say you open an account for your friend on the intermediate machine: s/he may use this machine to forward one of his local ports (say 2300) to port 23 on the PDP11 system (say pdp11-2bsd.example.net) as ssh -L 2300:pdp11-2bsd.example.net:23 hop.example.net This would forward his local port 2300 to port 23 of pdp11-2bsd.example.net, using the host hop.example.net as an intermediate SSH step. Then all that your friend needs to do is issue a telnet localhost 2300 and that would connect him to the telnet port of the PDP11 using SSH. If s/he uses windows, most SSH clients have a port forwarding tool that makes introducing this information very easy. So, to sumamrize: - you open an account on an intermediate host that has SSH - your friend creates a tunnel from his own computer to the PDP using the intermediate host with his user/pswd. - your friend telnets his/her own local computer at the chosen port All communications will be encrypted between his/her computer and the intermediate host, and go in the clear between the intermediate host and the PDP. If the intermediate host is behind a firewall, then that would be no problem. j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] UNIX and relatives and SSH

by Jose R Valverde

Hi Gregg, ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 2 months

Networking and the UNIX versions or releases for the PDP-11

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine Still working on my ideas regarding E11 and the usual OSes for the PDP-11. Would anyone of you know when networking via Ethernet was added to the capabilities of regular UNIX? It seems to be available in the releases of BSD that I've explored. For those that missed it, I can reiterate my plans concerning the Linux variety of E-11, and those operating systems, but only upon request. --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

19 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 27, Issue 1

by benyuan liu

hi all: currently i am reading the mit 6.828 course, and i am wondering how to creat a rk05 image from the ground up?just like the one mentioned in the course v6root v6src v6doc? thanks in advance~ ------------------------------ lucky buggy

19 years, 2 months

UNIX and relatives and SSH

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine One of my less then familiar with UNIX and its relatives, friend, wants to explore a system running UNIX. Probably BSD for the PDP-11 I should think. Since I view telnet, from the Internet to me anyway, as a security risk can someone check this assertion? The last version of BSD for the PDP-11 that I am aware of, and have seen on the site, 2.11 does not have the capability to run SSH, because it does not have the ability to compile it from source. SSH wasn't added to the operating systems that we use until much later. I freely admit that part of my assertion may not be correct however. (Regarding the ability to build SSH natively.) For example, I am aware that the BSD base, such as FreeBSD, and NetBSD, and OpenBSD, all have SSH included. It certainly is in Linux. What I am planning on doing is configuring the Linux version of E11 to run the chosen BSD pointing its Ethernet connection, to the one my Linux box in question uses. And have a second one also running the same release work as a gateway for the first. You'd run SSH to the gateway, login as a "guest" and via an appropriate password, and then telnet to the product. Of course to risk damage to the baseboard Ethernet connection, I'd probably put a cheap card in the computer, and run that over to my router. Pointing it of course to the E11instance. Warren, just for the sake of double checking my facts, are the instructions regarding the BSD family for the PDP-11 up to date? --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

19 years, 2 months

[pups] "/unix is not the running version." ??

by Robert Armstrong

Guys, Thanks for the help with my dzq11 problem - I'm glad to see that there are still people around running PDP-11 Unix. Now that I've actually started using my 11/73, I've run into several things that I just don't know how to fix. Like this one - I built a non-networking kernel (my normal /unix kernel has DEQNA and TCP/IP support) using the NONET example that comes with 2.11BSD. No particular problems there. Since I don't actually want to overwrite my /unix file, I can't use "make install" to install the nonet kernel, and so I just say "cp unix /nonet" and then chmod /nonet to set the protections. This might have been my mistake, but I don't know any other way to do it without trashing my real /unix kernel. To boot the nonet kernel, at the ":" boot prompt I type "nonet". All is well until we get up to init, and then it says autoconfig: /unix is not the running version init: configuration setup error And then I'm stuck in single user mode with no devices configured. Not especially useful. Is my mistake in just "cp"ing the nonet kernel, or is there some limitation on booting files other than /unix? Thanks again, Bob Armstrong

19 years, 3 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