5 Dec
2006
5 Dec
'06
9:10 a.m.
On 12/6/06, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
I can entirely believe that.
I might be getting it confused with a 3rd party
chassis, but I'm
pretty sure I've seen a metal drive sled, rather than the standard
DEC Plastic sleds. At the same time, getting the thickness right is
what will cause problems I suspect.
Hmm... I don't recall ever seeing a metal drive sled for a BA23 (the
OP's expansion box), only black plastic, with maybe one translucent
grey one out of the whole lot.
From what I remember about them, thickness is, of
course, an important
dimension, but really only the edges... the part under the
drive can
vary a bit and still leave room for a full-height drive, not that one
is horribly likely to be using anything that large with the abundance
of 1GB and 2GB 3.5" drives from their heyday 10 years ago.
I'd thought of, essentially, taking a plexiglass sheet, cutting the
outlines on a table saw (or whatever saw one has that can make long,
straight cuts (i.e., probably not a hand saw without a bunch of
filing), then using the dado blade and the fence to mill down the long
sides to the requisite thickness to fit down the slides in the BA23.
After that, the only fiddly bits are the drive screw holes and the
latch hole for the front of the plate, unless I've forgotten some
detail. I don't think the bent metal springs on the back of the plate
are _essential_, only nice to have where possible. In case I've
forgotten some detail, I was hoping someone with some experience
fabricating replacements could chime in - I, for one, have no idea
what any of the measurements might be, and I won't have a drive sled
in front of me for a month.
Viking and CMD
controllers were also common, IIRC.
It has been my experience that the Viking controllers were *very*
common and rebadged by at least a couple companies. All of my main
PDP-11's are using Viking QDT & UDT controllers. If he looks for a ESDI controller, I'd recommend
the Webster WQESD/04
controller. Personally it is the one non-SCSI 3rd party controller
I'd want to run (I did for several years).
I've heard of that one, but I don't think I have any experience with it.
I've found one of the advantages of SCSI is that
it's easy to use
drive trays to run multiple OS's.
Absolutely - quick swap-in-out, easy to get one drive per OS, etc.
RT-11 is very nice.
Agreed.
Somehow
either RSX-11M or RSX-11M+ seem a bit more appropriate for the system
in question. I'm not sure I'd recommend RSTS/E as a first OS.
Agreed as well. I have nothing against RSTS/E, but having worked with
all three OSes, I'd suggest learning something about RT-11 before
tackling RSTS, and even then, seeing if RSX11M or M+ had something to
offer before tackling RSTS. It has its place, but that place tended
to be larger systems intended for multiple simultaneous users. The
OP's CPU has plenty of horsepower to go around, but RSTS is complex
enough that it might take a lot of work to get a system to the point
where it's something fun to play on rather than a seemingly-perpetual
exercise in software archaeology. I've done both RSTS and RSX
sysgens... the RSX ones seemed to be more straightforward and resulted
in a running system with less user intervention.
BTW, another advantage of SCSI is attaching a CD-ROM
drive, which can
make installing an OS easier.
True that. I have zero experience with CD-ROMs on PDP-11s, so owners
of SCSI cards will have to chime in (to date, my only experience with
Qbus SCSI is with MicroVAXen).
-ethan
5 Dec
5 Dec
9:17 a.m.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
Agreed as well. I have nothing against RSTS/E, but
having worked with
all three OSes, I'd suggest learning something about RT-11 before
tackling RSTS, and even then, seeing if RSX11M or M+ had something to
offer before tackling RSTS. It has its place, but that place tended
to be larger systems intended for multiple simultaneous users. The
OP's CPU has plenty of horsepower to go around, but RSTS is complex
enough that it might take a lot of work to get a system to the point
where it's something fun to play on rather than a seemingly-perpetual
exercise in software archaeology. I've done both RSTS and RSX
sysgens... the RSX ones seemed to be more straightforward and resulted
in a running system with less user intervention.
Interesting...My RSTS vs. RSX experience has been exactly the
opposite. For me, on my old 11/34a eons ago, an RSX sysgen (v4.1)
took many hours of painstaking work, whereas a RSTS sysgen (v9.4)
took five minutes of interactive work and then let the command
procedure run until it's done.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
5:44 p.m.
At 12:17 PM -0500 12/5/06, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
The reason I recommended leaving RSTS/E to last is that installing it
and DECnet/E can be tricky to say the least. Of the 3 (4 if you
count M+ separately), it seems to be the most picky about how it is
installed. I've installed RT-11, RSX-11M, and M+ all from CD-R, but
have yet to figure out how to do that with RSTS/E. Trust me,
DECnet/E doesn't like it if you try to install off of a 4mm DAT tape.
It took me a long time to figure out that was half my problem (the
other half was a marginal Network switch). Basically RSTS/E is the
only reason my PDP-11/73 still has a TZ30 (TK50) drive.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Agreed as well. I have nothing against RSTS/E,
but having worked with
all three OSes, I'd suggest learning something about RT-11 before
tackling RSTS, and even then, seeing if RSX11M or M+ had something to
offer before tackling RSTS. It has its place, but that place tended
to be larger systems intended for multiple simultaneous users. The
OP's CPU has plenty of horsepower to go around, but RSTS is complex
enough that it might take a lot of work to get a system to the point
where it's something fun to play on rather than a seemingly-perpetual
exercise in software archaeology. I've done both RSTS and RSX
sysgens... the RSX ones seemed to be more straightforward and resulted
in a running system with less user intervention.
Interesting...My RSTS vs. RSX experience has been exactly the
opposite. For me, on my old 11/34a eons ago, an RSX sysgen (v4.1)
took many hours of painstaking work, whereas a RSTS sysgen (v9.4)
took five minutes of interactive work and then let the command
procedure run until it's done.
6591
days inactive
6592
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com