Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L9-dna2lYtXPwnrLnZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160981 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> some of the LCS installations instead of treating it like extension to
> memory, treated it as a kind of (3090) expanded store ... or simulated
> electronic disk. They would simulate read/write transfer operations
> moving data back&forth between LCS and "fast memory".
>
I THINK our 360/50 had no other memory.
> trivia ... 360/67 single processor was basically 360/65 with hardware
> address relocation (virtual memory).
>
It was just a base and limit register, so it relocated the whole contiguous
block for a single program so it appeared to start at location zero (to that
program). This worked like a number of minicomputer MMUs.
The problem with 360's (and early 370's without DAT) was that programs were
totally relocatable at load time, but as soon as you executed a few
instructions, physical addresses ("pointers") and subroutine return
addresses were stored in registers and memory locations, and the program
could no longer be relocated. Not a big problem in the smallest machines,
but in larger machines, and especially when on-line programming like TSO
came into favor, you could have many hundreds of programs in some stage of
work. Without the /67's relocation feature, swapping programs in and out of
memory was essentially impossible, as it would have to be swapped back into
the same address as it had been in before.
For the 360/67, IBM provided a very hacked OS called CP/67. Mostly they had
to make every system service handle converting any addresses included as
parameters from program space-relative addresses to physical addresses
before the supervisor-state routines could work correctly. Not a terribly
hard job, but required a huge amount of code to be changed. Also, no I/O
could be left hanging when a program was swapped out.
> 360/65 multiprocessor was basically two single processor 360/65 with
> memory laid out as single entity ... but both processors had their own
> dedicated channels. all channels and both processors would contend for
> memory access. SMP I/O would be simulated by having two channel
> controllers ... that would be configured at same address on channels
> going to the two different processors.
>
We ran M65MP on our single-processor /65, I think they believed it had
better machine check handling than plain OS/360. I know we sure had a lot
of machine checks - a lot due to bad power quality.
Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fuvs4gl4.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160989 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
> The problem with 360's (and early 370's without DAT) was that programs
> were totally relocatable at load time, but as soon as you executed a
> few instructions, physical addresses ("pointers") and subroutine
> return addresses were stored in registers and memory locations, and
> the program could no longer be relocated. Not a big problem in the
> smallest machines, but in larger machines, and especially when on-line
> programming like TSO came into favor, you could have many hundreds of
> programs in some stage of work. Without the /67's relocation feature,
> swapping programs in and out of memory was essentially impossible, as
> it would have to be swapped back into the same address as it had been
> in before.
>
> For the 360/67, IBM provided a very hacked OS called CP/67. Mostly
> they had to make every system service handle converting any addresses
> included as parameters from program space-relative addresses to
> physical addresses before the supervisor-state routines could work
> correctly. Not a terribly hard job, but required a huge amount of
> code to be changed. Also, no I/O could be left hanging when a program
> was swapped out.
APL/360 swapped workspaces because workspace contents were all
interpreted ... no 360 address fields.
360/67 had segment and page tables ... 1mbyte segements and psw-mode
controlled whether it was 24bit (16mbyte) or 32bit (4gbyte) addressing
(and tables).
os/360 "relocatable" were RLD records which gave location of the address
constant within the program that had to be "swizzled" after loading but
before execution could begin.
Official system for 360/67 was tss/360 ... which created location
independent execution image. Address space tables could be setup to
point to the executable image on disk ... and at arbitrary, dynamically
chosen virtual address ... w/o having to preload the image and swizzle
all the RLD address constant.
science center did (virtual memory) cp/40 and cms on 360/40 that had
been modified with virtual memory hardware. cms ran "stand-alone"
on 360/40 in standard 360 mode. CMS was developed in parallel with
development of cp/40 ... and some of it reflected the experience
that many had on MIT's CTSS (some of the CTSS went to the 5th flr
and did multics and others went to the science center on the 4th flr)
CTSS reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System
cp/40 history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt
past posts mentioning the science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
when science center is able to replace their modified 360/40 with
360/67, cp/40 morphs into cp/67. Melinda has a lot more of that
history ("VM History" about half-way down)
http://www.leeandmelindavarian.com/Melinda/
One of the issues with CMS, was the science center adopted a lot of
os/360 applications ... and needed to provide os/360 system services
simulation in CMS ... and also acquired a lot of os/360 RLD address
constant conventions. Every CMS had its own virtual address space and
ran in a 360 virtual machine doing I/O with SIOs and channel programs
(ran the same way on stand alone 360/40 as it did in cp/40 or cp/67
virtual machine). It did do a executable image that had all the ADCONS
pre-swizzled ... but it resulted in them having to be loaded a fixed
address.
Jan1968, three people came out and installed CP/67 at university where I
was undergraduate. Over the next several months, I rewrote large parts
of the CP/67 kernel code (including significantly reducing pathlengths)
... and presented some results at the '68 SHARE meeting ... part of that
presentation:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#22 Pre S/360 IBM Operating Systems?
I also did dynamic adaptive resource management, added TTY terminal
support, added order-seek disk arm queuing, dynamically chaining
multi-I/O requests in single channel program for disks and 2301 drum
(2301 optimized for maximum transfer per revolution), and redid the page
replacement algorithm and page thrasing control operation. some posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
and
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
After graduating and joining the science center ... I did a paged-mapped
filesystem for CMS ... which had significantly higher throughput than
the standard CMS filesystem ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#mmap
I also redid the CP/67 shared segment infrastructure ... so that could
dynamically have multiple shared things at arbitrary locations in the
virtual address space. Standard CMS executables transferred from
standard filesystem to page mapped filesystem would have to be mapped at
the pre-established fixed virtual address. For code to reside in shared
segment (appear concurrently at different virtual address spaces) I
usually had to do some amount of rewrite. For typical code that
would be address independent (similar to tss/360), i usually had
to do a whole lot more work. Lots of past posts about pain to
get location independent and/or shared code for CMS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#adcon
Note that for CP/67 virtual machine SIO ... CCWTRANS would scan the
channel program in the virtual machine, fixing/pinning the virtual pages
involved in the I/O in real storage, and creating a copy of the channel
program with the real page addresses (as opposed to the virtual page
addresses), start the I/O with the copy channel program and when it
finishes, "unpin" the virtual pages.
When they did OS/360 MVT for virtual memory OS/VS2 SVS, they initially
borrowed CP/67's CCWTRANS and worked it into EXCP/SVC0 processing. MVT
moving to virtual memory had to accept application channel programs
built in virtual address space and passed in EXCP/SVC0 and do the same
processing that CP/67 did for virtual machine SIO operation. That was by
far the biggest amount of code that tehy needed in going from MVT to
OS/VS2 SVS (OS/VS2 SVS startup would build a single 16mbyte virtual
address space and fix MVT to believe it was running on 16mbyte real
machine, then there was a little bit of code to handle page fault, page
replacement and page i/o operation).
Note: since virtual memory was handled on individual 4k page basis,
tasks could be dropped from queue and its pages replaced by some other
activated task while I/O simulation was in progress (only the virtual
pages actually involved in I/O were fixed, and they would be unpinned
and become available as soon as i/o completed) ... dropping from queue
can be done whether or not there was simulated I/O in progress.
During the early 70s, there was the internal Future System effort that
was completely different than 360/370 and was going to completely
replace it.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
I continued to work on CP/67 and would periodically ridicule FS. Part of
this FS was doing some of the worst of tss/360 "single-level-store" and
I would claim that I learned what not to do for my page-mapped CMS
filesystem from IBM SE that would play with tss/360 at the univ (even
tho tss/360 did location independent executable images
correctly). During FS they were killing off 370 efforts, which is
credited with giving clone processors market foothold. When FS implodes,
there is made rush to get stuff back into 370 product pipelines
... which contributes to decision to release a lot of stuff I had been
doing. Old email about having migrated my stuff from cp67 to vm370
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87twk8jp8h.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160994 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> I also did dynamic adaptive resource management, added TTY terminal
> support, added order-seek disk arm queuing, dynamically chaining
> multi-I/O requests in single channel program for disks and 2301 drum
> (2301 optimized for maximum transfer per revolution), and redid the page
> replacement algorithm and page thrasing control operation. some posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
> and
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
Early 80s I was at San Jose Research when Jim Gray left for
Tandem, not before leaving "MIP Envy" behind
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#email801006
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#email801016
copy
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#800920
and 24sep1980 version here
http://web.archive.org/web/20081115000000/http://research.microsoft.com/~gray//papers/CritiqueOfIBM%27sCSResearch.doc
At Dec81 Asilomar SIGOPS, Jim asked me if I could help a Tandem coworker
get his (Stanford) Phd .... which involved "global" LRU page
replacement. The "local" LRU page replacement forces were heavily
lobbying not to allow the Phd to be granted (at one time the email
exchanges were public on the internet).
Jim knew I had done "global" LRU work with CP67 as undergraduate in the
60s about the same time academic "local" LRU papers were being
published. Then in the early 70s, the IBM Grenoble science center
modified CP67 to conform to "local" LRU papers published in the 60s
("working set" dispatcher) and had paper published in CACM.
At the time Grenoble had 1mbyte 360/67 (155 4k pageable pages after
fixed storage requirements) and Cambridge had 768k 360/67 (104 4k
pageable pages after fixed storage requirements. Cambridge with 70-80
users got better throughput and interactive response than Grenoble did
with 35 users running similar workload. reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#46 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
other references
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#4 360/67, was Re: IBM's Project F/S ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#10 Memory management - Page replacement
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#49 Swapper was Re: History of Login Names
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#37 virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#38 virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#42 virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#18 virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#66 Messing Up the System/360
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ejukrc-6f8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160970 |
In article <pJWdnZqq1rRZtnrLnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: >Quadibloc wrote: > >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> >>> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >>> > most of them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, >>> > possibly, the /195. >> >>> The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >>> capability that S/360 had? >> >> I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard. >> Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the >> smartphone talking to it. >> >> Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work >> on the level of a far slower mainframe of old. Part of that is perfectly >> legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print >> out a month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours >> - but some of it is a loss. >> >Well, maybe. The 360/30 had a single-byte wide memory with 2.5 us cycle >time. So, you could get 300K bytes/second I/O for ALL devices on the >system, total. Note that while much I/O was running, the CPU had to be >locked out to prevent data late errors. This is about what the performance of the Arduino is. 3 megabit/s is what the add-on ethernet can do. >Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories. >We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of memory >(for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time. We later got a 360/65 >and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, and they >could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage. 8 us, if we assume 32-bit memory that is 4 megabits/sec. Not much. >But, practically anything you'd use today has at least 100 Mbit Ethernet. >I can't recall EVER seeing a 360 with faster than a 9600 baud modem, and >those were for RJE point to point connections and cost a real fortune. >(You could set up channel to channel adapters to interconnect 360s, I had >heard of such stuff, but I never saw one myself.) > >The IBM 2314 disk system did 312,000 bytes/second. Modern SATA disk drivess >can do actual transfers of 100 MByte/sec or more. The early 2314 had average >seek time of 85 ms. Even the early ATA disks could do more than 1M bytes/second as a transfer; the issue there was seek; but you would need some really slow ones to get to 85 ms. 35-40 was more normal. This is the PC per ca 1995. >I do know, from running the same programs on a modern PC and on a MicroVAX- >II, that the PC is 1000X faster than the MicroVax. And, I can extrapolate >that the MicroVAX is definitely a lot faster than a mid-scale 360. No, about the same; I would gather. The PCs of today have 4-6 BIPS; and this is around 500 times a 360/195, AFAICT. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LO2dnaDSTPT-53XLnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160998 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <pJWdnZqq1rRZtnrLnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: >>I do know, from running the same programs on a modern PC and on a >>MicroVAX- >>II, that the PC is 1000X faster than the MicroVax. And, I can extrapolate >>that the MicroVAX is definitely a lot faster than a mid-scale 360. > > No, about the same; I would gather. The PCs of today have 4-6 BIPS; and > this is around 500 times a 360/195, AFAICT. No, when I say "mid scale 360" I'm thinking about 360/50 and 360/65. I know our /50 was hobbled by the incredibly slow LCS, so it probably did not live up to the ~150K instructions/second rating. The /65 comes in at around 550KIPS. A uVax-II (KA630) was about 800-900KIPS, AND had virtual memory. It had much faster memory CYCLE TIMES than even the /65, but the comparison narrows as the /65 had 64-bit (plus parity) memory. So, I think I am giving accurate info that the uVAX-II was at least a bit faster than the 360/65. CLEARLY, it has to be faster than a /50. I have no experience with the really high end 360's and 370's. I did do some course work on the University of Missouri's 370/168, and it was a very capable machine, running rooms full of teleprocessing users plus batch from 4 campuses (maybe more) and giving quite respectable turnaround times. Darn reliable system, too. But, then, 370's were a substantial level above 360's in reliability. Part of that had to do with the robust power system, while 360's were really sensitive to glitchy power. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bn6fqubx.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161025 |
Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes: > I have no experience with the really high end 360's and 370's. I did do > some course work on the University of Missouri's 370/168, and it was a very > capable machine, running rooms full of teleprocessing users plus batch from > 4 campuses (maybe more) and giving quite respectable turnaround times. Darn > reliable system, too. But, then, 370's were a substantial level above 360's > in reliability. Part of that had to do with the robust power system, while > 360's were really sensitive to glitchy power. I got sucked into talking with the 195 group when they were looking at doing multithreading, dual i-stream for 370/195 (never shipped); see "Sidebar: Multithreading" here ... references patents and disclosures http://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html they mentioned that a big difference between 360/195 and 370/195 was addition of instruction retry which significantly improved reliability. peak 195 was around 10mips ... but didn't have branch prediction or speculative execution ... so conditional branches drained pipeline and most codes ran around 5mips. dual i-streams avg. 5mips each, could keep 195 running peak. Later at SJR, they had 370/195 that ran MVT with typical queue/backlog was around 3 months for an hour numeric intesive job. Palo Alto Science Center did some stuff to vm370 for their 370/145 (benchmarking and some other stuff) to run their task background ... especially offshift & weekends soaking up spare cycles. 370/145 was something like 30 times slower than 370/195 ... but they could get a month turn-around (instead of 3months with the SJR 370/195). Across the street was the disk engineering (bldg14) and product test (bldg15) labs. They were running around-the-clock, 7x24, scheduled stand-alone test time on their mainframes for disk development and test. They had once tried MVS for concurrent testing but found it had 15min MTBF in that environment (requiring manual reboot). I offerred to rewrite I/O supervisor so it was bullet-proof and never fail. They were then able to do on-demand, anytime, concurrent testing ... greatly improving productivity. bldg15 then got the 3rd engineering 3033 ... and since even multiple concurrent testing only used one or two percent of the processor ... we put up online service for small select group of people ... and would sometimes do favors for others. One of the things was guy doing air-bearing simulation for design of thin-film floating (disk) heads. Even with expediated service his turning around on the 370/195 was a couple weeks. We set him up so he could run on the bldg15 3033 and he was able to get multiple turn arounds a day (the 3033 was only 4.5MIPS compared to 10MIPS for the 370/195, but there was no backlog). misc. past posts getting to play disk engineer in bldg. 14&15 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0e6dnbF3E5GJF3XLnZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161027 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > Later at SJR, they had 370/195 that ran MVT with typical queue/backlog > was around 3 months for an hour numeric intesive job. 3 MONTH turnaround??? MY god, likely if you didn't shoot yourself, you'd be out of a job before you got your result back! This totally boggles the mind! Well, so much for the guys longing for the "good old days"! Thanks, but NO THANKS!!!! Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8760wnqruf.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161029 |
Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes: > 3 MONTH turnaround??? MY god, likely if you didn't shoot yourself, > you'd be out of a job before you got your result back! This totally > boggles the mind! > > Well, so much for the guys longing for the "good old days"! Thanks, but NO > THANKS!!!! as mentioned recently in this thread, Jim Gray wrote MIP Envy as he was leaving for Tandem. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#email800920 I got blamed for online computer conferencing (precursor to social media) on the internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until the mid-80s) in the late 70s and early 80. Most widely read was "Tandem Memos" that started with a trip report that I distributed after visiting Jim at Tandem. Folklore is that when the corporate executive committee was told about online computer conferencing (and the internal network), 5of6 wanted to fire me. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet from IBM Jargon: MIP envy - n. The term, coined by Jim Gray in 1980, that began the Tandem Memos (q.v.). MIP envy is the coveting of other's facilities - not just the CPU power available to them, but also the languages, editors, debuggers, mail systems and networks. MIP envy is a term every programmer will understand, being another expression of the proverb The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Tandem Memos - n. Something constructive but hard to control; a fresh of breath air (sic). That's another Tandem Memos. A phrase to worry middle management. It refers to the computer-based conference (widely distributed in 1981) in which many technical personnel expressed dissatisfaction with the tools available to them at that time, and also constructively criticised the way products were are developed. The memos are required reading for anyone with a serious interest in quality products. If you have not seen the memos, try reading the November 1981 Datamation summary. ... snip ... somewhat as a result, a researcher was paid to sit in the back of my office studying how I communicated, taking notes on face-to-face, getting copies of all my incoming & outgoing email, logs of instant messages, etc. Material was used for internal research reports, papers, talks, books, and Stanford Phd (joint between language and computer AI). some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#cmc old email from long ago and far away: Date: 10/29/81 14:23:23 To: wheeler Found more about the task force on which I will be sitting in November. It apparently was commissioned by corporate VP for Technical Vitality to study the work environment contemplated for IBM "Professionals" in the later part of this decade. I got a package of material that is "food for thought" that I was encouraged(!) to share with my colleagues. The first of the pieces was a memo to Distribution "A" signed by John Opel. Interestingly enuf, it wasn't on letterhead. It goes as follows. August 12, 1981 Many IBMers need access to computing power to do their jobs and we have tried to supply them with the right tools, in the right quantity, at the right time. But recent feedback in the form of surveys and comment, has convinced me we have to do more. A shortage of computing power can adversely affect not only the quality and quantity of the work our professional employees turn out, but their morale as well. Therefore, despite the strong market demand for all our products, we are now providing additional internal computing resource, including both mainframes and peripherals, with special emphasis on the needs of our plants and laboratories. Some equipment will also be available to support other operating units. In the future, we plan to ship new products directly to IBM sites much earlier than we have in the past. This program, which will include early 3081s and 3380s, will also include the IBM Personal Computer. A road show on the IBM Personal Computer has been put together by Boca Raton, and Dennis Andrews of Boca will be calling plant/lab site managers to schedule briefings and demonstrations. Please be sure the people who report to you understand and communicate this change in priorities. Also, be surre the appropriate people give careful attention to the Boca presentation so that by September 15, 1981, they can order IBM Personal Computers for those who need them in their work. (Signed) John R. Opel. Note: There was NO classisification on this letter. Another part of the package included a bit entitled "Excerpts From Widely Distributed VNET Messages". Most of it was XXXXXXX's farewell memo and another farewell memo that was put into the system later. I don't remember exactly whose it was. The next part of the package was press release information on the Xerox STAR. Lastly there is a paper by A. J. Thadhani entitled "Interactive User Productivity" which on a browse looks like what Doherty has been saying for some time. The task force is expected to run 12 hours a day for 4 days, with some slop over to Friday. I am expected to give a 30 minute pitch on my collected thoughts on the subject of working environment. I reiterate that I was encouraged to consult my colleagues, and this is the best way I know how. I your views on this or anything else in the subject of working environment/computers/personal computing, and what IBM should do for itself. ... snip ... One of the changes was big influx in the installation of 4341s out in departmental areas (sort of coming wave of distributed computing tsunami) ... old email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#4341 The corporate VP of Technical Vitality came out supposedly to talk to me about my ideas for improving things inside IBM ... but the repeated message during the discussion that went on for a couple hrs was that I and the IBM company were on collusion course (when I distributed things with detailed document). Another taskforce visited several research and technical institutions and wrote up comparison/observations ... I've previously posted bits and pieces: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#61 MVS History (all parts) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#56 AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs R&D History http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#31 "25th Anniversary of the Personal Computer" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#37 Are there more stupid people in IT than there used to be? -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871t7bqr0o.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161031 |
somewhat related to Opel's reference to IBM/PC ... El-Erian is discussing bimodal distribution. The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse (Mohamed A. El-Erian) http://www.amazon.com/Only-Game-Town-Instability-Avoiding-ebook/dp/B0165I3V4C/ loc3334-36: Remember the dominance of IBM on the eve of the personal computer (PC) revolution. The company had by far the most powerful brand in technology. Each year it deployed a large R&D budget. And it was profitable. By these metrics, it was in a very strong position to dominate the PC revolution. loc3336-39: Research shows that IBM executives were aware of the “disruptive technology” aspect of the PC. They discussed the issues involved, recognizing the potential for a bimodal outcome for mainframe customers, their bread-and-butter clientele. Some would be lost permanently to the PC while others would be interested in mainframe upgrades to support new requirements. loc3340-41: But when it came to implementation, IBM appeared to fall into the “active inertia” trap. Rather than pivot decisively to the new approach, they allowed their much more familiar historical behavior to overinfluence their future actions. ... snip ... Late 80s, a senior disk engineer gets a talk scheduled at annual, world-wide, internal communication group conference, supposedly on 3174 performance ... but opens the talk with statement that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group had stranglehold on datacenters with corporate strategic ownership of everything crossing the datacenter walls, and were fiercely fighting off distributed computing and client/server (trying to preserve their dumb terminal paradigm and install base). The disk division was starting to see data fleeing the datacenter to more distributed computing friendly platforms with drop in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of solutions to reverse the process, but were constantly being vetoed by the communication group. some posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal Trivia: The science center had developed a lot of performance technologies, monitoring, simulation, analytical modeling, workload&system profiling (evolves into capacity planning), etc. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech One of the APL-based analytical models was enhanced and offerred on the world-wide online sales&marketing support system HONE as "Performance Predictor", sales support could enter workload&system profiles and ask change "what-if" questions. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone I had done dynamic adaptive resource management as undergraudate in the 60s, which was picked up and shipped in CP67. In the morph from CP67 to VM370 there was a lot of simplification and many features were dropped. During the FS period I continued to work on 360/370 stuff (even periodically ridiculing FS activity). VM370 customers were lobbying for re-introduction of my dynamic adaptive resource management and the with the implosion of FS and the mad rush to get stuff back into the 370 product pipelines, contributed to decision to (re-)release my "Resource Manager". http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare and http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys I had also developed some automated benchmarking tools that could vary workload & configuration. As part of the release of the "Resource Manager", 2000 automated benchmarks were run that took 3months elapsed time. The first 1000 benchmarks were selected to methodically cover possible workload and configuration profiles. The last 1000 benchmarks workload&configuration profiles was selected by a modified version of the "Performance Predictor" which was fed results of all previous benchmarks. It would select workload/configuration, predict the results and then compare the benchmark results with the predicted. It would also search for optimal workload+configurations doing "hill climbing" searching for maximums and also attempting to differentiate from "local" maximums verses "real" maximums. This assumes that there might be an arbitrary number of optimal maximum solutions somewhat analogy to multi-modal (not just bimodal) distribution. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#benchmark -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87shzqxti0.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161031 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > Lastly there is a paper by A. J. Thadhani entitled "Interactive User > Productivity" which on a browse looks like what Doherty has been > saying for some time. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#4 You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Thadhani reports had human productivity improved with .25sec interative response (there was early YKT research study about variation between people regarding perception of "immediate" response ... some couldn't differentiate between immediate and .2secs, others could differentiate between immediate and "delay" down to .1secs). from ibm jargon: bad response - n. A delay in the response time to a trivial request of a computer that is longer than two tenths of one second. In the 1970s, IBM 3277 display terminals attached to quite small System/360 machines could service up to 19 interruptions every second from a user I measured it myself. Today, this kind of response time is considered impossible or unachievable, even though work by Doherty, Thadhani, and others has shown that human productivity and satisfaction are almost linearly inversely proportional to computer response time. It is hoped (but not expected) that the definition of Bad Response will drop below one tenth of a second by 1990. ... snip ... I've posted periodically that some internal sites bragged about having online vm370s getting consistent .25sec system trivial interactive response. However, local channel attach 3272/3277 had .086 hardware response ... making response seen by human for .25sec system response, would get .11sec system trivial interactive response ... making response seen by human .196sec. then they did 3274 controller where they moved a lot of the electronics for 3278 back into the controller (to reduce terminal manufacturing costs). This significantly increased protocol chatter over the terminal coax ... and local channel attach 3274/3278 had hardware response of .3-.5secs for typical operations ... making it impossible to have .25sec (total) response seen by human. SNA (non-direct channel) connected controllers and "remote" controllers significantly increased that latency. MVS/TSO response tended to be much worse than second response ... which contributes to that population rarely noticing transition from 3272/3277 to 3274/3278. Internally, there were complaints to 3274 product administrator that 3274 made interactive computing worse. Eventually the 3274 product administrator responded that 3274 wasn't designed for online interactive computing, it was designed for data entry (i.e. online keypunch). reference http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol Later the 3274 coax protocol chatter overhead shows up in upload/download speed with ibm/pc terminal emulator. 3277 emulator card had three times the upload/download throughput of 3278 emulator card. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#emulation past posts referencing Thadhani: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#53 3270 Terminal http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#84 Is there an SPF setting to turn CAPS ON like keyboard key? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#12 Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#13 From Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#15 Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#2 The PC industry is heading for collapse http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#19 Writing article on telework/telecommuting http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#15 cp67, vm370, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#37 Why File transfer through TSO IND$FILE is slower than TCP/IP FTP ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#37 PDP-10 and Vax, was System/360--50 years--the future? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#1 3270 response & channel throughput http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#55 Dualcase vs monocase. Was: Article for the boss http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#44 System Response http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#127 How Much Bandwidth do we have? -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb92ed63-ab9a-4c26-ac3b-fd8617667ef7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160970 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories. > We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of memory > (for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time. We later got a 360/65 > and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, and they > could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage. IIRC, the IBM S/360 history wasn't too flattering about the Large Core Storage. As you say, it was rather slow, and apparently not a good value. I think the higher the machine, the core interleaving was more advanced (e.g. two-way and four-way). The System 360 Summary explains it for each machine. As mentioned, we had 2415 tape drives which were the bargain unit and we got what we paid for. Horrendously slow. When I got to a site with 'real' tape drives, I think their write speed was faster than the 2415's rewind speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <966848168.479782096.141536.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161036 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > >> Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories. >> We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of memory >> (for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time. We later got a 360/65 >> and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, and they >> could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage. > > IIRC, the IBM S/360 history wasn't too flattering about the Large > Core Storage. As you say, it was rather slow, and apparently not > a good value. The advantage of LCS was that the slower speed enabled it to be placed further away from the CPU (or maybe visa-versa). One limitation of core was the speed-of-light delay. > > I think the higher the machine, the core interleaving was more > advanced (e.g. two-way and four-way). The System 360 Summary > explains it for each machine. > > > As mentioned, we had 2415 tape drives which were the bargain > unit and we got what we paid for. Horrendously slow. When I > got to a site with 'real' tape drives, I think their write > speed was faster than the 2415's rewind speed. > Most 360s I worked on in the early days had 2415s. I was happy to move to a system with 3420s. I can still remember the "honk" the drives made loading a tape. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <K5WdnRtCrOb0EnTLnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161042 |
Peter Flass wrote: > > The advantage of LCS was that the slower speed enabled it to be placed > further away from the CPU (or maybe visa-versa). One limitation of core > was the speed-of-light delay. No, really, speed of light was completely minicule vs. 8 us cycle time! The reason the LCS was so slow was that it used giant cores from the 7090 days. You could look in through the smoke-gray Plexiglas window and SEE the individual cores from several feet away. All those thousands of cores strung on the select wires added up to a huge inductance, and that slowed the rise time of the select currents. The worst was actually the inhibit wire, which passed through EVERY core on a bit plane, while the X and Y select wires only passed through sqrt of the cores times the number of bit planes. Given a certain voltage supply to the select drivers, that limited the rate of current rise in the cores. The LCS would usually be standing within a couple feet of the CPU, so the cables were generally no more than about 12 feet. 12 feet of typical bus/tag cable would give a one-way delay of no more than 15 ns, so the round trip would not exceed 30 ns. More modern core units went to smaller and smaller cores, reducing the inductance dramatically. Also, this reduced the size of the actual core arrays, allowing more memory to fit inside the processor cabinet. Another change was that the smaller cores took less current to reach their switching point, so that less power was dissipated, and not only was the inductance- caused current slope faster, but you didn't have to ramp up to as high a current, making it still faster. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr6dnWPp2YScEHTLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161036 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > >> Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories. >> We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of >> memory >> (for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time. We later got a >> 360/65 and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, >> and they could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage. > > IIRC, the IBM S/360 history wasn't too flattering about the Large > Core Storage. As you say, it was rather slow, and apparently not > a good value. > Well, the ONLY good point about the LCS was that is made it possible to put a LOT of memory on certain processors that otherwise were very limited. That may apply mostly to the 360/50. > I think the higher the machine, the core interleaving was more > advanced (e.g. two-way and four-way). The System 360 Summary > explains it for each machine. > > > As mentioned, we had 2415 tape drives which were the bargain > unit and we got what we paid for. Horrendously slow. When I > got to a site with 'real' tape drives, I think their write > speed was faster than the 2415's rewind speed. Yes, there were tape systems aimed at specific markets, some sites did NOT need fast tapes, some really did. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkop9qFpvncU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160964 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:c0b41d3c-74cc-4948-9135-0b19588466c3@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >> > most of >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the >> > /195. > >> The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >> capability that S/360 had? > > I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard. > Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the > smartphone talking to it. > > Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work > on > the level of a far slower mainframe of old. Part of that is perfectly > legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print > out a > month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours - but > some > of it is a loss. > > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard > disk > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and > write > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you > want > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! That last is just plain wrong. My desktop has 5 and can have 8 internally and more externally and isnt a server. > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at > inflated prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iamdnUWzGbTW2XrLnZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160964 |
Quadibloc wrote: > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard > disk drive. Yes, true on "small form factor" machines. Not enough space in the box for more than one HDD and a CD drive. > So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file > and write to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to > have if you want them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! But, larger "mini tower" etc. desktop boxes from the old PATA generation usually had two PATA busses, usual config was one HDD on one, one CD drive on the other. If you didn't want a CD, you could put 4 hard drives on there, one master and one slave per bus. Many Dell desktops that I'm familiar with had mounting space for 4 drives, but you might have to mix two 3.5 and two 2.5 drives. Most "full size" desktop motherboards now have several SATA connectors. You could also get RAID controllers for PCI slots that allowed connecting 4 or more drives to a PC. We have a couple of these here at work. Basic desktop Mini-Tower boxes with RAID controllers. They are USED as servers, but are not actually rack-mount server machines. We also have a couple rack mount servers with built-in RAID and hot-swap drive trays. These things do cost a lot more than regular desktops. As for the head motion, modern drives have large buffers (megabytes) built in, and try to do read-ahead so they read input files in big chunks, and delay writing so they can write big chunks when convenient, so the amount of "disk chugging" is greatly reduced. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qv0krc-308.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160964 |
In article <c0b41d3c-74cc-4948-9135-0b19588466c3@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195. > >> The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >> capability that S/360 had? > >I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard. >Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the >smartphone talking to it. If you give a modern PC the number of I/O devices a mainframe has/had, it will outperform at least anything pre-1990 in terms of I/O. It certainly has the channel capacity. Even a single USB 2.0 has ~50 MB/sec transfer capacity. A lot less with the actual I/O done, but this was the case with the 3x0 channels too. >Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work on >the level of a far slower mainframe of old. Part of that is perfectly >legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print out a >month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours - but some >of it is a loss. > >For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! > >I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). Indeed. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3151350ab25b3d6498a027@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160964 |
In article <c0b41d3c-74cc-4948-9135-0b19588466c3@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > > > > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of > > > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195. > > > The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O > > capability that S/360 had? > > I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard. > Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the > smartphone talking to it. > > Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work on > the level of a far slower mainframe of old. For certain values of old. > Part of that is perfectly > legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print out a > month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours That would be a limitation of the printer, not the computer. However a rather low end laser printer would give a '70s line printer a run for its money. > - but some > of it is a loss. > > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! My 600 buck Gateway has slots for at least 6 drives. As for the heads moving back and forth, what are these "heads" of which you speak? (It's 2016 you know--SSDs are readily available). > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). It's a volume issue. Not much sold so per unit prices higher. In any case, you need a server-class machine to use it. > > John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160964 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! > > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, I'm being forced to buy a new PC. I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31528dc0b3c58fe398a02c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk > > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write > > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want > > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! > > > > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that > > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated > > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). > > My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is > flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. > Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, > I'm being forced to buy a new PC. That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. > I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to > a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable > on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. Because Google wants to sell advertisements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web