test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by scaron＠umich.edu

Cisco 2600 with an 8-port sync/async serial card would make a nice replacement and they're pretty easy on the wallet these days. You might spend as much cabling it as you did for the unit when it's all said and done? C2500s lingered on in this role for some time as well, though they're quite a bit slower than the 2600. Or an old Portmaster, those things are dirt cheap now. It's always annoying when you get in a situation like this; I had a very contemporary ATEN IPKVM at work that would get stuck in a reboot loop the minute I plugged it into a specific VLAN full of traffic. Never could get them to fix it... Best, Sean On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Bill Sudbrink <wh.sudbrink at verizon.net> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > Or maybe customize the WRT software installed on the router? > > Yes, I was thinking about that too. There's a guy called "Merlin" > who customizes it. I have not exactly identified the offending > traffic. I'm not sure what I would lose if various "subsystems" > in the router were disabled. > > > Isn't WRT open source? > > Yes. > > Bill S. > >

11 years, 10 months

Semi-OT: xylogics annex terminal server

by drb＠msu.edu

> 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

11 years, 10 months

Semi-OT: xylogics annex terminal server

by jacob.ritorto＠gmail.com

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. > >

11 years, 10 months

Semi-OT: xylogics annex terminal server

by b4＠gewt.net

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

11 years, 10 months

Semi-OT: xylogics annex terminal server

by wh.sudbrink＠verizon.net

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.

11 years, 10 months

Vancouver: HP3000 on Craigs

by silent700＠gmail.com

Old ad now but it may still be available. Looks like it's FtaGH: http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/sys/4656087606.html Hope someone can rescue it. -j

11 years, 10 months

What quad QBUS boards work in a Q/CD backplane?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

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

11 years, 10 months

Who is the world's oldest working programmer?

by les＠hildenbrandt.com

I think I heard that Eve had an Apple and Adam had a Wang. :)

11 years, 10 months

IBM1629 & "C" was RE: Who is the world's oldest working programmer?

by dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com

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.

11 years, 10 months

Any info / software available for a Ridge 32/330?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> 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

11 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2026

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

test-drb