16 Mar
2015
16 Mar
'15
8:40 a.m.
Was the J11 chipset (11/73, 83, and 93) the only qbus processor with separate instruction
and data space? And did 2.9BSD ever run without it?
Thanks.
16 Mar
16 Mar
8:43 a.m.
On 2015-03-16 13:40, Roe Peterson wrote:
Was the J11 chipset (11/73, 83, and 93) the only qbus
processor with separate instruction and data space? And did 2.9BSD ever run without it?
Yes, the J11 is the only chipset that have split I&D space. All other
I&D space processors were made with several boards.
And yes, as far as I know, 2.9BSD should be able to run on a J11. I
don't remember if it was capable of taking advantage of split I&D space,
but I think it was.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
8:45 a.m.
On 2015-03-16 13:43, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-03-16 13:40, Roe Peterson wrote:
Doh! Misunderstood the last question...
As far as running 2.9BSD without split I&D space, I've definitely read
about it being able. I think it was mentioned somewhere, that this was
the last version known to be able to do this.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Was the J11 chipset (11/73, 83, and 93) the only
qbus processor with
separate instruction and data space? And did 2.9BSD ever run without it?
Yes, the J11 is the only chipset that have split I&D space. All other
I&D space processors were made with several boards.
And yes, as far as I know, 2.9BSD should be able to run on a J11. I
don't remember if it was capable of taking advantage of split I&D space,
but I think it was. 
9:03 a.m.
On 16/03/2015 12:45, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-03-16 13:43, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2015-03-16 13:40, Roe Peterson wrote:
>> Was the J11 chipset (11/73, 83, and 93) the only qbus processor with
>> separate instruction and data space? And did 2.9BSD ever run without
>> it?
As far as running 2.9BSD without split I&D space,
I've definitely read
about it being able. I think it was mentioned somewhere, that this was
the last version known to be able to do this.
AFAIK, that's correct - 2.9BSD doesn't need split I&D, but 2.11BSD does.
--
Pete
Pete Turnbull
9:34 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at update.uu.se> wrote:
Doh! Misunderstood the last question...
As far as running 2.9BSD without split I&D space, I've definitely read about
it being able. I think it was mentioned somewhere, that this was the last
version known to be able to do this.
I have run 2.9BSD on a real 11/24 (F-11, no split I&D).
-ethan
10:16 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Ethan Dicks
<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
Thats what I gleaned from comments in the unix faq. I am going to try installing 2.9 on
my 11/23+ and see how far I get.
Can you recall if anything oddball was needed to install it on the 24?
Thanks, all!
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at update.uu.se> wrote:
Doh! Misunderstood the last question...
As far as running 2.9BSD without split I&D space, I've definitely read about
it being able. I think it was mentioned somewhere, that this was the last
version known to be able to do this.
I have run 2.9BSD on a real 11/24 (F-11, no split I&D).
-ethan
10:54 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Roe Peterson <roeapeterson at gmail.com> wrote:
What disk controller do you have? That's the biggest issue.
I have run
2.9BSD on a real 11/24 (F-11, no split I&D).
Thats what I gleaned from comments in the unix faq. I am going to try installing 2.9 on
my 11/23+ and see how far I get. Can you recall if anything oddball was needed to
install it on the 24?
Nothing oddball except I had to have the right type of tape controller
to boot my install tapes (MS vs MT) and I had to have enough storage
on a supported controller. There was no MSCP support for 2.9BSD in
those days. There are modernish patches now. I did my install onto a
pair of RL02 disks (because I didn't have an RK07). You will need
more than 10MB if you want to rebuild the kernel, but you can put the
install kernel on a 10MB disk and noodle around. ISTR there's support
at install time for a number of types of system disk, but RK05 was now
too small. There are also 3rd-party ESDI and SMD controllers that
would work.
-ethan
11:26 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Ethan Dicks
<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Roe Peterson <roeapeterson at gmail.com> wrote:
What disk controller do you have? That's the biggest issue.
Im thinking about a pair of RL02 drives myself.
I am guessing I will have more success prepping a pair of RL02 images with simh and using
vtserver to copy them to the RLs than trying to find a suitable working tape drive...
I have
run 2.9BSD on a real 11/24 (F-11, no split I&D).
Thats what I gleaned from comments in the unix faq. I am going to try installing 2.9 on
my 11/23+ and see how far I get. There was no MSCP support for 2.9BSD in
those days. There are modernish patches now. I did my install onto a
pair of RL02 disks (because I didn't have an RK07). You will need
more than 10MB if you want to rebuild the kernel, but you can put the
install kernel on a 10MB disk and noodle around. ISTR there's support
at install time for a number of types of system disk, but RK05 was now
too small. There are also 3rd-party ESDI and SMD controllers that
would work.
Ive got an old eagle drive I want to play with, I have an emulex SC03 on the way...
-ethan
11:41 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Roe Peterson <roeapeterson at gmail.com> wrote:
Im thinking about a pair of RL02 drives myself.
My memory of that is you will have to do some manual directory
management to split across two disks. Like I said, the primary
install should fit in 10MB, but not with source and man pages, and the
load-from-tape procedure doesn't give you a lot of flexibility.
I am guessing I will have more success prepping a pair
of RL02 images with simh and using vtserver to copy them to the RLs than trying to find a
suitable working tape drive...
I didn't figure you had a real tape drive (most people don't,
especially for Qbus) and I don't even remember if there _is_ a DEC MT
Qbus controller (there is probably a 3rd-party one).
Ive got an old eagle drive I want to play with, I have
an emulex SC03 on the way...
That sounds like a winning combination.
-ethan
3413
days inactive
3413
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
bqt＠update.uu.se -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
roeapeterson＠gmail.com