12 Jul
2009
12 Jul
'09
5:19 a.m.
Subject: RE: TCP/IP for VMS 5.4
From: <arcarlini at iee.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:06:30 +0100
To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" <cctalk
at classiccmp.org>
cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org wrote:
V5 was the cutoff for DEQNA, specifically it was DEQNA is unsupported
and DELQA was supported. That really ment that if you ran a DEQNA
and had problems with it they would tell you get a DELQA. It'also meant
the code to run DEQNA was still there and it should work but to expect
no software updates for that device and that device did run at reduced
performance. I don't believe the driver itse;f was deleted till later
possibly V6.
Also the DEQNA was prone to failure, so if the system doesn't see it
it may be cause it is dead.
The reason I am running 5.4 is that I am running it on a
MicroVAX II with a DEQNA, and my understanding is that later
versions of VMS did not support the DEQNA, only the DELQA.
This is true, for some value of "later". V5.4 sounds about
right for the cutoff. > I also only have 7MB of working memory (total of
9MB but 2MB
> are considered bad by VMS) so it may not work well with later
> versions for lack of memory (not sure though).
V5 or later works in 6 but very poorly. It should not be hard to
find working ram to increase that.
It could also be the over the top connector has failed.
Are you sure that VMS sees it as bad? If it just
doesn't see it
at all, that could well be because you need to run AUTOGEN
(and maybe ferret out and remove a possible parameter that
is limiting the number of physical pages ]it might even be
PHYSICALPAGES]).
It's possible but less likely.
What does SHOW MEM say?
That would tell us something.
Allison
13 Jul
13 Jul
12:50 a.m.
V5 was the cutoff for DEQNA, specifically it was DEQNA
is unsupported
and DELQA was supported. That really ment that if you ran a DEQNA
and had problems with it they would tell you get a DELQA. It'also
meant
the code to run DEQNA was still there and it should work but to expect
no software updates for that device and that device did run at reduced
performance. I don't believe the driver itse;f was deleted till later
possibly V6.
Also the DEQNA was prone to failure, so if the system doesn't see it
it may be cause it is dead.
Here is the SH MEM output:
$ sh mem
System Memory Resources on 27-JUN-2009 00:11:06.43
Physical Memory Usage (pages): Total Free In Use Modified
Main Memory (9.00Mb) 18432 9748 8171 513
Bad Pages Total Dynamic I/O Errors Static
4095 0 2048 2047
This suggests to me that the second board is accessible, but only part of it
is working. I have the "bad" board in the second slot, if I move it to the
first slot then the system sees less contiguous good memory (MDM boots if
the bad board is in the second slot, but does not if it is in the first
slot). This suggest to me that it is the board itself that is faulty
somewhere. Unfortunately I do not have the equipment or expertise to
diagnose the problem (although I am willing to learn!).
Regards
Rob
> I also only have 7MB of working memory (total
of 9MB but 2MB
> are considered bad by VMS) so it may not work well with later
> versions for lack of memory (not sure though).
V5 or later works in 6 but very poorly. It should not be hard to
find working ram to increase that.
It could also be the over the top connector has failed.
Are you sure that VMS sees it as bad? If it just
doesn't see it
at all, that could well be because you need to run AUTOGEN
(and maybe ferret out and remove a possible parameter that
is limiting the number of physical pages ]it might even be
PHYSICALPAGES]).
It's possible but less likely.
What does SHOW MEM say?
That would tell us something.
Allison
5641
days inactive
5642
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com