Re: enable-34 - There are no backplane mods. As I recall it used normal memory, just enabled the top bits in the address map which were not driven by the 40 class processors. I'll see if I can dig up some doc for it, which I might still have. I'm traveling, so this will have to wait for a few days.

As for running 2.11bsd - I can't say as I never tried it. What the enable board will do it give you 4Megs of memory. By using thunks and the memory map, the enable will allow the kernel to have I/O buffers, mbufs, and a kernel I space that can grow beyond the 64k address limit - plus still have room for a few user processes in memory at the same time.

RE: ultrix vs BSD 2* -- Once it's running, I don't think you are going to find a lot differences mostly in what was packaged in the defaults system - just shades of grey. Much less than the flavors of Linux these days IMO.

Clem

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto@gmail.com> wrote:

Hilariously, I actually do have an enable-34 board in my stash.. Just saw it in the last week or so & will dig it out in next few days. So does that single board contain the memory and everything, or is this a backplane mod/special memory kind of setup?

I'd be eager to run Ultrix jut for the extra flavor (I've only done the bsds on my pdp11s thus far), but one of my real desires here is to have the machine behave itself as a pretty normal net citizen, connecting through some sort of ethernet and running legit telnetd and ftpd. That said, I won't be too sad if that's impossible and kludges are required, but it is my initial hope. I guess I need to first ascertain exactly which 11/34 I have, how much ram I can scrounge up, which addressing scheme, etc. then move on to what I can actually do, software-wise, with the kit.

With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this one? Sounds like that'd avoid a lot of the more sporty software modifications and let me have something that works like a "normal" modern-ish system. But then, I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could run that build much more easily and appropriately.. I guess I'm up for whatever is most historically appropriate, a good match for the hardware and at least able to be present on a contemporary network without intermediary kludge hardware.

thx
jake

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4@gewt.net> wrote:
Well, 2.10 has SLIP,
SLIP means you still need the IP stack
(serial-line-ip)
. It
just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.

but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple userland tool to talk to a frontend!

Actually there was tool that was almost all in userland to support multiple sessions over single serial line between a Macs a UNIX system. My memory is that it used Chesson's multiplexer (mpx) which is part of stock V7 (his is pre-select system call). I wish I could remember the name of that program. But I bet it or something like it could be repurposed pretty quickly to talk to a frontend micro.

Biggest issue is interrupt overhead on serial ports on the 11. If this is real HW, see you can find a real DEC DH or better yet - an Able DH/DM. DH style interfaces will be a huge difference over DL's or DZs. DZs were pigs on Vaxen and on an 11 a line at 19.2K continuous could kill it.

BTW: I thought of another option. It's not telnet or ftp, but if your desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it. That will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of interface can matter from a performance standpoint.

Clem

_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs