Just back from a visit to RE-PC in Tukwila.... Tucked back in a corner
is a large box of original IBM floppy disks (both 8 and 5.25) for AS-400
with some docs in 3ring binders. Looks to be apps although there are
some sealed pkgs as well.... they want $40 for the box but
occasionally dicker.
Is this stuff potentially significant?
Steve
> This new router seems to broadcast a number of packet types that the
> IP stack on the Annex was not designed to handle. The buffers
> containing these packets appear to be leaked and the memory loss
> eventually causes the Annex to hang hard. This happens about every
> 40 hours. A power cycle will bring it back. A bit of googling seems
> to indicate that I am running the latest official firmware (from
> 1995?). I can't seem to find any web discussion of the Annex more
> recent than 2004. I wondered whether anyone here might know of some
> trick or some small remaining community of users of the Annex. I
> know that it has something to do with traffic from the new router
> because if I isolate it on a subnet by itself it still runs fine with
> no memory loss.
Nortel discontinued the line about then, if memory serves. You might
try asking Doug Jones <dcjones at netdesc.com>. He was providing some
support for Annexen after Nortel quit.
Honestly, the easiest thing to do is probably to throw one of the small
board computers at being a packet filter, though.
What model do you have?
De
I still use annex terminal servers too, but haven't seen your problem, nor
do I know of solutions. Was buying them well into 2001. I think bay
networks bought out xylogics. maybe they have a newer firmware?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Bill Sudbrink <wh.sudbrink at verizon.net>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the above mentioned device and have been using it
> for a number of years to access the console ports on several
> of my vintage computers. It also communicates with the
> serial ports on a couple of older UPSs that I still have in
> service. It has worked flawlessly up until a couple of
> months ago. At that time, I replaced my old primary router
> with a new one. This new router is an ASUS and runs an ASUS
> specific version of WRT. This new router seems to broadcast
> a number of packet types that the IP stack on the Annex was
> not designed to handle. The buffers containing these packets
> appear to be leaked and the memory loss eventually causes the
> Annex to hang hard. This happens about every 40 hours. A
> power cycle will bring it back. A bit of googling seems to
> indicate that I am running the latest official firmware (from
> 1995?). I can't seem to find any web discussion of the Annex
> more recent than 2004. I wondered whether anyone here might
> know of some trick or some small remaining community of users
> of the Annex. I know that it has something to do with traffic
> from the new router because if I isolate it on a subnet by
> itself it still runs fine with no memory loss.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill S.
>
>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Bill Sudbrink wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the above mentioned device and have been using it
> for a number of years to access the console ports on several
> of my vintage computers. It also communicates with the
> serial ports on a couple of older UPSs that I still have in
> service. It has worked flawlessly up until a couple of
> months ago. At that time, I replaced my old primary router
> with a new one. This new router is an ASUS and runs an ASUS
> specific version of WRT. This new router seems to broadcast
> a number of packet types that the IP stack on the Annex was
> not designed to handle. The buffers containing these packets
> appear to be leaked and the memory loss eventually causes the
> Annex to hang hard. This happens about every 40 hours. A
> power cycle will bring it back. A bit of googling seems to
> indicate that I am running the latest official firmware (from
> 1995?). I can't seem to find any web discussion of the Annex
> more recent than 2004. I wondered whether anyone here might
> know of some trick or some small remaining community of users
> of the Annex. I know that it has something to do with traffic
> from the new router because if I isolate it on a subnet by
> itself it still runs fine with no memory loss.
>
Oooooh. Annex! I have no familiarity with those, need to learn 'em for
my pet project.
> Thanks,
> Bill S.
>
>
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Hi all,
I have the above mentioned device and have been using it
for a number of years to access the console ports on several
of my vintage computers. It also communicates with the
serial ports on a couple of older UPSs that I still have in
service. It has worked flawlessly up until a couple of
months ago. At that time, I replaced my old primary router
with a new one. This new router is an ASUS and runs an ASUS
specific version of WRT. This new router seems to broadcast
a number of packet types that the IP stack on the Annex was
not designed to handle. The buffers containing these packets
appear to be leaked and the memory loss eventually causes the
Annex to hang hard. This happens about every 40 hours. A
power cycle will bring it back. A bit of googling seems to
indicate that I am running the latest official firmware (from
1995?). I can't seem to find any web discussion of the Annex
more recent than 2004. I wondered whether anyone here might
know of some trick or some small remaining community of users
of the Annex. I know that it has something to do with traffic
>from the new router because if I isolate it on a subnet by
itself it still runs fine with no memory loss.
Thanks,
Bill S.
Does anyone know of a list of quad QBUS cards that work (or do not work) in
Q/CD backplanes (other than the board pairs specifically designed to go in a
Q/CD backplane, of course)? I tried Google, but either there is no such list,
or my Google-fu is pretty weak.
For instance, I'm looking at a BDV11, and it has the usual grant jumpers on
CM2-CN2 and CR2-CS2, but I don't think those will be a problem (provided there
is no quad board immediately next to it). Similarly, CB2 is tied to DB2, and
the two feed (through a jumper which is normally removed) special power (-5V)
for a particular kind of EPROM; but again, I don't think this will be a
problem (again, if blank neighbour slot).
But I'd rather not have to go through that exercise for every quad card; it
would be nice if there's a table which just says which ones are OK. (I did
find mention, in the 1980 Interfaces Handbook, in the BA11-N entry, that
MMV11-A modules will _not_ work in a Q/CD backplane, which _implies_ that
all the rest are OK, but...)
Noel
The problem with the IBM1620 is that it has extra bits in the characters that can't be used to store data. This mean that implementing the "C" language in way which allows it to perform meaningful work possibly on existing data would be challenging. I can't see any point in implementing any language just to show it can be done...
Dave
G4UGM
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: 30 September 2014 08:51
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Who is the world's oldest working programmer?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Sean Conner <spc at conman.org> wrote:
> Going back to K&R ... um ... maybe? Perhaps? Can you address a
> single BCD digit? If not, it may make char * a bit hard to support ...
Actually, if you *can* address a single BCD digit, that will make C hard to support, because C requires that all data types have sizes of a multiple of the size of the character type, and the character type is required to have a range of at least -127 to +127 (for signed char) or 0 to 255 for unsigned char. It would seem that the easiest way to do that on a BCD machine would be to use groups of three digits (or
more) as a char, and have a lot of the possible machine values of those groups be illegal.
This is essentially the same reason that a compliant C on a PDP-10 would have to use 9, 12, 18, or 36 bit characters, and not directly support the normal PDP-10 native 6-bit and 7-bit characters.
> From: Sean Caron
> I'd at least grab the boards out of it, if you could.
I cringed when I read this! I find so many boards available for old PDP11's -
but without the cables, cabinet plates, etc which make them usable. E.g.
there's currently a seller on eBay who has an RK11 board set - but without the
custom backplane, they are useful only as spares for an existing RK11.
Grabbing the boards is better than recycling the whole works, I concede; but
such boards are effectively sentenced to being spares for an existing unit:
they will almost certainly never again function as a working unit.
So I think it is a desperate move to save only boards - one really ought to
try and save the rest if one possibly can. (I know, in this case that happened;
I was just commenting on the general concept.)
Noel