[HECnet] Downtime next week

[Christine Caulfield]

On 20/08/09 09:41, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Gregg Levine wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Steve Davidson<jeep at scshome.net> wrote:
What you really want to try for is a DECserver 90TL. This will do Telnet
and LAT in both directions. Let's not forget smaller/lighter and
easier on
the electric bill. Don't forget the power supply, or the mini-rack
(includes power supply), or the DEChub-90 backplane to power this.

-Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE on behalf of Sampsa Laine
Sent: Wed 8/19/2009 12:52
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Downtime next week

On 19 Aug 2009, at 07:20, Gregg Levine wrote:
Hello!
I am both relieved in thinking that I am not the only one on this list
to be considered like that, and jealous especially considering the
DECserver 200.

I've been trying to track down one of those beasts for a very long
while now. Practically the entire time period that I've known (in a
matter of speaking) all of you on this list, plus the few I know from
two other lists. (Three even.)
I got mine off ebay, a quick look on US ebay shows that there are
plenty of them available, e.g.:

DECserver 700-16:

http://cgi.ebay.com/DEC-Digital-DECserver-700-DSRVW-ZC-700-16_W0QQitemZ290339324831QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439992839f&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_1383wt_1167


DECserver 200/MC:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Digital-DECserver-200-MC-DSRVB-A_W0QQitemZ130324846349QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPCC_Modems?hash=item1e57f7570d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_3439wt_1167


Sampsa




Hello!
Steve I have three here, all DEC Server 90s. They aren't exactly
friendly to the Linux-DECNet code. Whereas the 200s are more to their
liking (The code base that is.)

However there's something about the basic 200 that resembles the PDP
background for them......

There are plenty of problems with the Linux LAT code (this isn't
DECnet). I tried looking at it a few years ago, but decided that it
would be easier to rewrite all of it instead of trying to fix that code.
But then I got sidetracked (as often happens), so I haven't done
anything about it.

Several people have already come to that conclusion, including me! It was written while I was reverse-engineering it so it's built up as a heap of guesses on top of other guesses. It works most of the time, to VMS, but as I didn't (and still don't) have anything else to test against that's where it stayed. I don't even have many DECservers to test against any more, my 90s power supply died (twice) and the 200 melted after the fans broke down :-( So the code languishes in its current state.

That said, I have also had problems with the Linux DECnet code.
Christine might remember me complaining in the past. :-)
It works fine with VMS, but horribly with RSX (which also is true of the
LAT code).

Although I've not tried doing much with Linux DECnet to RSX it's always seemed to work for me when I have tried it. I suspect that any problems here are much easier to fix. Even though the main protocol is in the kernel (unlike LAT) it's pretty solid code, so anything that needs fixing will most likely be in userspace. Most (though not all!) of that was written from proper specifications so should be easier to work with than LAT.

Then again ... I've not had any bug reports from anyone about either and it's quite hard to fix bugs you don't know about :-P

Chrissie