headers
John Klos | 2 Dec 2004 02:59

Battery backed clock replacement

Hello,

After a short "CRPT - Reenter bit clr" scare, I decided to look at the 
battery backed clocks in my two 4000/60 machines. Both were made in 1991. 
I am considering replacing them; does anyone know how the VAX will react 
to having a completely new, blank chip? Is there any backup / restore 
proceedure, or can I assume that i can put in a new one, and the VAX will 
just reprogram it without any issues?

Thanks,
John Klos
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Antonio Carlini | 2 Dec 2004 19:15

RE: Battery backed clock replacement

> After a short "CRPT - Reenter bit clr" scare, I decided to 
> look at the 
> battery backed clocks in my two 4000/60 machines. Both were 
> made in 1991. 
> I am considering replacing them; does anyone know how the VAX 
> will react 
> to having a completely new, blank chip? Is there any backup / restore 
> proceedure, or can I assume that i can put in a new one, and 
> the VAX will 
> just reprogram it without any issues?

No real idea. However, it must have been a pain in
manufacturing to either preprogram the clocks or
to have to do "something special" to make them work.

I know that on those workstations that ran both Ultrix
and VMS, the format of the data stored there was different
so the time skewed somehow when changing from one to the
other.

So my *guess* is that the first request would either have
been to make it sort itself out if it ever saw "corrupt"
data OR to provide a TEST command to fix it.

The manuals are on the net somewhere. If nothing else, they
should allow you to find out the location of the NVRAM so
you can dump it (I think it is all in the one chip).

Antonio
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
user8 | 8 Dec 2004 06:30

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Automated Reply from user8 <user8 <at> phileleftheros.com>?=

Your message did not reach one or more of its recipients. Please retry. If you still have problems please
contact the IT department, tel: 22744544 or send an e-mail at support <at> phileleftheros.com.

       Marios Ioannides
             22744544
marios <at> phileleftheros.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian Hechinger | 8 Dec 2004 15:52

NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

ok, it's installed (mostly cause the version of VMS i have has a bug and
won't install on simh, whee!).

i'm just curious, what's the best way to see how fast this thing is compared
to an actual KA655?

-brian
--

-- 
"Now you know why I got the everliving hell OUT of Windows administration.
Knowing it doesn't make it any easier.  It's just broken-as-designed."
Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Felix Deichmann | 8 Dec 2004 16:36
Picon

Re: NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

Brian Hechinger wrote:
> i'm just curious, what's the best way to see how fast this thing is compared
> to an actual KA655?

Dhrystone is THE CPU benchmark for a VAX :-)
1 VUP = 1657 Dhrystones
And then compare to 3.8 VUPs for the KA655 (higher is better).

Regards

Felix
Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Dennis Grevenstein | 9 Dec 2004 02:35
Picon

Re: NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:52:58AM -0500, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> ok, it's installed (mostly cause the version of VMS i have has a bug and
> won't install on simh, whee!).
>
> i'm just curious, what's the best way to see how fast this thing is compared
> to an actual KA655?

Well, if I may:
http://sites.inka.de/pcde/dbp/

I put together this little benchmark suite and the main goal
was portability. I even have a VMS version somewhere on the
disks of a 4000/60.
Any VAX owners are very welcome to contribute more results.

mfg
Dennis

--

-- 
There is certainly no purpose in remaining in the dark
except long enough to clear from the mind
the illusion of ever having been in the light.
                                        T.S. Eliot
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Klos | 9 Dec 2004 11:31

Perl 5.8 and NetBSD 2.0

Hi,

Does anyone have a definitive way to overcome the problem with awk and NAN 
(or whatever the problem was) that prevents Perl 5.8 from compiling? I'd 
like to see if we can fix this before the pkgsrc tree freeze is over, 
especially since 2.0 will be out any minute now.

Thanks,
John Klos
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian Hechinger | 9 Dec 2004 15:47

Re: NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:36:43PM +0100, Felix Deichmann wrote:
> 
> Dhrystone is THE CPU benchmark for a VAX :-)
> 1 VUP = 1657 Dhrystones
> And then compare to 3.8 VUPs for the KA655 (higher is better).

ok, host machine:

PowerMac 8600, 400Mhz G3, 512K L2, 416M RAM
NetBSD 2.0
simh 3.3

VAX MIPS rating =      1.412 

well, that's not great.  let's see how the E3500 does. ;)

-brian
--

-- 
"Now you know why I got the everliving hell OUT of Windows administration.
Knowing it doesn't make it any easier.  It's just broken-as-designed."
Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Patrick Finnegan | 9 Dec 2004 16:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

On Thursday 09 December 2004 09:47, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:36:43PM +0100, Felix Deichmann wrote:
> > Dhrystone is THE CPU benchmark for a VAX :-)
> > 1 VUP = 1657 Dhrystones
> > And then compare to 3.8 VUPs for the KA655 (higher is better).
>
> ok, host machine:
>
> PowerMac 8600, 400Mhz G3, 512K L2, 416M RAM
> NetBSD 2.0
> simh 3.3
>
> VAX MIPS rating =      1.412
>
> well, that's not great.  let's see how the E3500 does. ;)

Probably not a whole lot better... simh is single-threaded, so it'll 
only really use one CPU, and there's probably not much speed difference 
to SimH between the same MHz PPC G3 and UltraSparcII.  Almost 
definately no more than 50% better, and the UltraSparc might actually 
be worse (for CPU intensive tasks).  Sun Ultrasparc machines - 
especially the Exy00 enterprise machines - are built for I/O 
performance, not CPU horsepower.  

Pat
--

-- 
Purdue University Research Computing --  http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcac
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Brian Hechinger | 9 Dec 2004 16:57

Re: NetBSD/vax 2.0 on simh

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:22:29AM -0500, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> 
> Probably not a whole lot better... simh is single-threaded, so it'll 
> only really use one CPU, and there's probably not much speed difference 
> to SimH between the same MHz PPC G3 and UltraSparcII.  Almost 
> definately no more than 50% better, and the UltraSparc might actually 
> be worse (for CPU intensive tasks).  Sun Ultrasparc machines - 
> especially the Exy00 enterprise machines - are built for I/O 
> performance, not CPU horsepower.  

oh, i know all about 3500s, and didn't expect it to be all that much faster. ;)

and it wasn't!!

VAX MIPS rating =      1.706 

-brian
--

-- 
"Now you know why I got the everliving hell OUT of Windows administration.
Knowing it doesn't make it any easier.  It's just broken-as-designed."
Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |

Gmane