royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) (10/10/89)
I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a developement and/or production platform and is pleased. I used them for more than a year and hate the things.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/10/89)
In article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes: >I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >developement and/or production platform and is pleased. > >I used them for more than a year and hate the things. I prefer my RT over the last large machine [ Plexus P/95 ] I had available to do development on. There are a few things I'd -like- to have. Like three 310MB internal EESDIs instead of the #$*^%&@ 440MB SCSI I've had so much trouble with lately. Three E70s and a 9332/440 do not cut it. RTs come in a variety of shapes and sizes. I could imagine being quite disgusted with a ROMP desktop, 4MB, and a M44. On the other hand, a 135, 3 E310s, a megapel, and 16MB fast ram would keep me [ and xfish ;-) ] happy for a long, long time. Getting the right CPU is a big factor. ROMPs all need to be heaved. Next is LOTS of RAM and several big, fast disks. -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
bill@inebriae.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) (10/10/89)
In article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes: > >I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >developement and/or production platform and is pleased. > >I used them for more than a year and hate the things. Depending on the flavor (processor) you have, the RT is a very capable development machine. I used a ROMP for a while and was completely underwhelmed. Adding some memory helped, but relative to a 16MHz 80386, it was pretty pokey. An APC-125 upgrade made it quite acceptable with the same work mix, but it ran into loading problems when I piled a heavy duty load on it. The ideal development system for a truly "industrial strength" load is an APC-135. On paper it's only 25% faster than a 125, but for a long series of compiles and links it's better than twice as fast. I can get through a huge make in about seven hours that takes twelve on the aforementioned 16MHz 80386. Since there was no mention of $$$ comparison, I'll leave it at that :-) -- Bill Kennedy {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/10/89)
In article <433@inebriae.UUCP> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >The ideal development system for a truly "industrial strength" load is >an APC-135. On paper it's only 25% faster than a 125, but for a long >series of compiles and links it's better than twice as fast. I can >get through a huge make in about seven hours that takes twelve on the >aforementioned 16MHz 80386. Since there was no mention of $$$ comparison, >I'll leave it at that :-) The 135 is [ allegedly ] 60 percent faster than a 125 on ``industrial strength'' builds and such. We had a French SE in our department for a few weeks. I'll see if I can remember to dig up his benchmarks. The worst problem with a well-configured 135 =is= price. A nicely configured RT [ three-holer, SCSI, tape, megapel, 16MB ] runs about $80,000. I would compare it favorably against a 25MHz VME bus 68020 machine [ which cost my former employers $120,000 ;-( and only had 2 274MB 9" ESDI disks and 8MB of memory ] -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (10/10/89)
In article <17122@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >The 135 is [ allegedly ] 60 percent faster than a 125 on ``industrial >strength'' builds and such. Can you just pull the ROMP or APC card (+ memory) from an RT chassis and plug in a model 135 processor/memory board? I must say, that would be a great "end-of-life-kicker" for those of us who have invested in RTs. (Provided the price was right, natch.) -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
jason@cs.utexas.edu (Jason Levitt) (10/11/89)
In article <17120@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes: >>I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >>developement and/or production platform and is pleased. >> >>I used them for more than a year and hate the things. > >I prefer my RT over the last large machine [ Plexus P/95 ] I had >available to do development on. > >In article <433@inebriae.UUCP> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) >writes:Depending on the flavor (processor) you have, the RT is a very capable >development machine. Could we get some feedback from people who are not working at IBM in Austin. It's great that Bill and John enjoy their RTs provided for them by IBM here in Austin, but I think Keenan deserves to hear some outsiders' development experiences... ----- Jason Levitt P.O. Box 49860 Austin, Texas 78765 (512) 459-0055 Internet : jason@cs.utexas.edu | "Toroidal carbohydrate modules? UUCP : ...cs.utexas.edu!hackbox!jason | Make mine glazed!" BIX : jlevitt | -- Zippy
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (10/11/89)
In article <899@gort.cs.utexas.edu> jason@cs.utexas.edu (Jason Levitt) writes: >Could we get some feedback from people who are not working at IBM >in Austin. It's great that Bill and John enjoy their RTs provided for >them by IBM here in Austin, but I think Keenan deserves to hear some >outsiders' development experiences... I haven't had a whole lot of AIX/RT experience. My brief experience with led me to conclude that the latest (2.2.1) wasn't too bad, although it still gave you this weird feeling of coming out of an entirely different "culture", although it had now seemed to have completed "UNIX as a 2nd language." :-) AOS on the RT is fantastic, as has been said here again and again, and would be unbeatable if the High C compiler could be shaken out a few times more. AOS really shows off the machine well. I prefer it to a Sun 3 or MicroVAX II development environment. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/11/89)
In article <174@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >Can you just pull the ROMP or APC card (+ memory) from an RT chassis and >plug in a model 135 processor/memory board? > >I must say, that would be a great "end-of-life-kicker" for those of >us who have invested in RTs. (Provided the price was right, natch.) So far as I know, you just yank out your ROMP or APC and RAM boards and plug in a 135 and off you go. You do something like that, plus upgrade your disks and controllers to EESDI and you might just want to keep that RT, Steve. ObDislaimer: I don't speak for IBM. -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
clp@beartrk.beartrack.com (Charlie Pilzer) (10/11/89)
In article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes: >>I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >>developement and/or production platform and is pleased. >> >>I used them for more than a year and hate the things. We have a Model 25 we are using for development and have installed several machines (25s & 125s) as production machines at client sites. We feel that for our purposes its a pretty good machine. Our experience so far is that the hardware has no down time. There are some software problems (particularly early releases of AIX) but nothing fatal. The development machine is a Model 25 with 4 MB Ram, 3 x E70 disks and a 6157 Model 1 tape drive. It also has a bunch of ports. Its no great blazer but it gets the job done. Our projects are commercial (accounting, small data base, and WP) rather than research or heavy development. The major problems are: the compiler is deadly slow, our 386 box screams past it; the tape drive (as are all 1/4" drives) is a joke; and its hard to really find out about the machine (the documentation may have been rewritten, but you have to search through a dozen books to find ALL the information you might need and then sometimes you still can't find it). On the other hand, nothing has ever failed in the hardware. AIX is different; its not BSD and its not Sys V. There are changes that were made to Sys V for reasons that are not apparent to me. In spite of that, its easy enough to write code that works on the RT and can be ported to 386 under XENIX or to a 3B2 without any difficulty. We don't have lots of people banging on the machine so maybe that's how we get away with it. As far as the machines installed for clients, its a pretty good choice. Its not the fastest or even classy but it gets the job done. Its got the IBM name on the outside and IBM will come fix it (I guess, no one's ever needed to call them). Our clients are running a pretty controlled set of applications (no development work at all) and its easy enough to tune the machine under those conditions. AIX is invisible to the users (except for the person who administers the machine) so its compatibility with Sys V is not a concern. If I had to choose a platform now to use as a production machine, I would probably choose a 386 machine only because of the price and availability of alternate suppliers. But if a client insisted on an IBM machine I would not hesitate to use an RT. As a ISV/VAR, our biggest problem with the RT is availability. We can't get them and neither can our distributer. We've been waiting close to a year for an upgrade (25 -> 125) kit. Got one of two, put it in, kicked up the machine just fine but we can't seem to get the second kit. The biggest problem of the RT now is the fact that it got a terrible start. The original releases of AIX were slow and buggy. The fact that the software was slow didn't help the slow machines. The new machines are fast enough and AIX has a come a long way. I suspect that because the press was bad about the original RTs that IBM may have backed off from really pushing the line. I'm looking forward to the new machines that are going to be released Real Soon Now. I can understand that if you are in a heavy R & D environment, the RT is not going to cut it. And the parts of AIX that have been changed could be really frustrating but as a small (under 30 users) machine for commercial applications its pretty good. I just wish that it would find better acceptance in the marketplace so that lots of Tnird Party companies would release products for the RT. I would like to get a larger disk but you only use disks from IBM. As far as I know there are no third party EESDI disks, or memory cards available. You can (and should) get third party multi-port boards. Charlie Pilzer clp#beartrk.beartrack.com Charlie Pilzer clp@beartrk.beartrack.com
wlm@archet.UUCP (William L. Moran Jr.) (10/11/89)
In article <174@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >In article <17122@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>The 135 is [ allegedly ] 60 percent faster than a 125 on ``industrial >>strength'' builds and such. > >Can you just pull the ROMP or APC card (+ memory) from an RT chassis and >plug in a model 135 processor/memory board? > >I must say, that would be a great "end-of-life-kicker" for those of >us who have invested in RTs. (Provided the price was right, natch.) Yes, you can just do this, although I don't know if such an upgrade is available, as I did it by taking the EAPC and EAFPA from a 135 and replacing the stuff in my 115. Now, if only you could use the slots the memory used to go in for a fast disk controller and ethernet card (or something), things would be nice. -- arpa: moran-william@cs.yale.edu or wlm@ibm.com uucp: uunet!bywater!acheron!archet!wlm or decvax!yale!moran-william ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Playing on the status symbols - Laying out the ready cash Bigger, better, newer, smarter - Hear the status symbols clash! Flanders & Swann
schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (10/11/89)
In article <178@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
AOS on the RT is fantastic, as has been said here again and again, and
would be unbeatable if the High C compiler could be shaken out a few
times more.
Speaking of compilers, the beta release of gcc for the rt (ftp-ed from
jim.ultra.nyu.edu) is in pretty good shape and getting better. (It
compiles the X server into a smaller binary than hc does, for example.
There is some bitcrud, which may mean bad code, but that remains to be
tracked down.)
--
Scott Schwartz <schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu>
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) (10/11/89)
>I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >developement and/or production platform and is pleased. > >I used them for more than a year and hate the things. I'm sure this is going to come as a huge shock to most of the regular readers of this group, but I am *very* pleased with the RT, both as a development system and as a platform for installing our application. (I am extremely *unhappy* with IBM support policies, but you didn't ask that...). I find the RT to be fast enough (I used to consider it to be very fast, until the latest wave of announcements from other suppliers). It has been very stable, both the operating system and the hardware; I don't think I've seen a single operating system crash in two years of hard development work. It is well documented; but you really have to have the patience to actually read the RT documentation. If you have been working with any other Unix system, and you just assume that things will be the same on the RT, you're in trouble. Finally, IBM has done a reasonably good job of providing the things I need/want from various sources, including most of the best parts of BSD Unix, X, NFS and such. I should mention that I have previously worked for the Swiss distributor(s) of a lot of Unix systems, including Momentum (really), Plexus, Sun, Opus, Arete and Sperry/Unisys. For the past two years I have been working for a software house, where we use RT/PC and MicroVax/Vaxstation systems for development. Given free choice of a development system today from any of those companies, I would probably still choose an RT for my development system. jw
phadke@castor.usc.edu (Sandeep Phadke) (10/12/89)
Hi! I worked with a pair of RT model 125's running AOS on it while in University of Notre Dame and I was very happy with them. I still prefer the RT for development than a SUN workstation. -Sandeep
johnny@edvvie.at (Johann Schweigl) (10/12/89)
From article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, by royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle): > > I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a > developement and/or production platform and is pleased. I am *NOT* a previous SUN user, VAX hacker or MIT guru. So I couldn't say that I'm too preoccupied with clean BSD experience. We are working mainly with 4 flavors of UNIX: SINIX, from SIEMENS. Can't figure out what SIEMENS did to UNIX. Suppose even they don't know. SCO XENIX. Things are a little complicated. All things ... AIX on PS/2. Not much systems software so far. IBM *PLEASE* gimme NFS or larger disks for the A21. AIX on RT since release 1.x. In an commercial production environment (ORACLE DBMS, C programs, Bourne scripts) we never had any serious trouble caused by the RT or AIX. It simply worked, and still does. Installation was easy. Porting software from PD tapes is a little boring - all the good programs are very BSD'ish. AIX/RT is not. Job control missing up to now - AIX PS/2 has it. Friends of mine, who previously worked on HPUX also loved it - because of AIX' administration tools. Sure the RT could be faster, that's what RIOS brings to us. The only fact I dislike *VERY* much is, that at least IBM Austria seems not to be willing to sell and support it actively. They're fully on the AS/400-Trip. If you want any good technical info about AIX - go to USENET (hello Austin, Almaden, ...) but forget your (Austrian) SE. Support from Hewlett Packard - that is all I'm missing in AIX. -- This does not reflect the | Johann Schweigl | DOS? opinions of my employer. | johnny@edvvie.at | Kind of complicated I am busy enough by talking | | bootstrap loader ... about my own ... | EDVG Vienna |
bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) (10/12/89)
Article <179@eliza.edvvie.at> by johnny@edvvie.at (Johann Schweigl) gives much credit to the PC/RT with AIX. I agree on his comments, that AIX is not at all a 'Bad thing from Big Blue', we have also been using AIX here for a long period, mostly doing development. I would however comment on the manuals (again :-). When reading the technical reference (parts (2), till (5) or (6) in SysV manuals) I am always missing information on what is (real) Unix and what is AIX additions. I used to work for a smaller computer manufacurer with a SysV box, and their manuals always had a 'RELATIONSHIP TO SVID' entry just before the BUGS entry. Please IBM, think about those of us who have to produce portable code. It would be much easier if the manual told us what is portable :-) -- Bjorn Engsig, bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com, mcvax!orcenl!bengsig
chet@kiwi.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) (10/13/89)
Jason Levitt <jason@cs.utexas.edu> asks: >>Could we get some feedback from people who are not working at IBM and Steve Dyer <dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM> obliges: >I haven't had a whole lot of AIX/RT experience. My brief experience with >led me to conclude that the latest (2.2.1) wasn't too bad, although it >still gave you this weird feeling of coming out of an entirely different >"culture", although it had now seemed to have completed "UNIX as a 2nd >language." :-) It flunked the networking part of the course, though. We tried doing some development on RTs (135s, 115s) running AIX 2.2.1 and were just stopped dead in our tracks by the awful NFS implementation. Programs residing on an NFS-mounted file system got memory faults and dumped core 60-70 % of the times they were executed. Running dbx on a program residing on an NFS-mounted file system could reproducibly crash the system. The TCP/IP implementation was hard to install and configure and fragile when it was finally running. The name server interface (gethostbyname() and so on) could not properly reverse-map IP addresses to host names (ftp 129.22.8.15 would sit there for a while, then report failure trying to do a name lookup). This is after you figured out how to set the name server up in the first place, which was explained nowhere. I could go on and on... Other than that, the things I missed were job control (of course :-), the user interface of the BSD terminal driver (though I got to kind of like the Sys 5 termio programming interface before we pitched AIX), and a lot of little BSD utilities (like gprof, more, diff -c, stty). >AOS on the RT is fantastic, as has been said here again and again, and >would be unbeatable if the High C compiler could be shaken out a few >times more. AOS really shows off the machine well. I prefer it to >a Sun 3 or MicroVAX II development environment. Yeah, it's great. I don't know if I prefer it to a Sun-3 development environment simply because I'm addicted to gdb, which does not yet run on AOS (I prefer it to a Sun-3 in most other respects, however). The HC compiler does suck, but I picked up a copy of gcc 1.35.99 that has been ported by a guy at NYU, and it seems to generate runnable code (but not debuggable -- dbx just throws up all over gcc's output, even though that output runs). Rumor has it that gdb is "just around the corner" as well. Chet Ramey Chet Ramey "We are preparing to think about contemplating Network Services Group, CWRU preliminary work on plans to develop a chet@cwjcc.INS.CWRU.Edu schedule for producing the 10th Edition of the Unix Programmers Manual." -- Andrew Hume
luner@werewolf.CS.WISC.EDU (David L. Luner) (10/13/89)
In article <538.nlhp3@oracle.nl> bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) writes: >... manuals always had a 'RELATIONSHIP TO SVID' entry just before >the BUGS entry. > >Please IBM, think about those of us who have to produce portable code. It >would be much easier if the manual told us what is portable :-) There is a publication from IBM titled "AIX Family Definition" that lists all system calls and the "standards" of which they are a part (e.g. POSIX, AIX, BSD, SVID). call your local IBM Branch Office. -- David
shepler@gumby..austin.ibm.com ( Spencer Shepler ph:3-4368 off:802/3E-71 ) (10/14/89)
In article <808@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> chet@kiwi.INS.CWRU.Edu (Chet Ramey) writes: >Jason Levitt <jason@cs.utexas.edu> asks: >>>Could we get some feedback from people who are not working at IBM > >and Steve Dyer <dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM> obliges: >>I haven't had a whole lot of AIX/RT experience. My brief experience with >>led me to conclude that the latest (2.2.1) wasn't too bad, although it >>still gave you this weird feeling of coming out of an entirely different >>"culture", although it had now seemed to have completed "UNIX as a 2nd >>language." :-) > >It flunked the networking part of the course, though. We tried doing some >development on RTs (135s, 115s) running AIX 2.2.1 and were just stopped >dead in our tracks by the awful NFS implementation. Programs residing on >an NFS-mounted file system got memory faults and dumped core 60-70 % of >the times they were executed. Running dbx on a program residing on an >NFS-mounted file system could reproducibly crash the system. The TCP/IP >implementation was hard to install and configure and fragile when it was >finally running. The name server interface (gethostbyname() and so on) >could not properly reverse-map IP addresses to host names (ftp 129.22.8.15 >would sit there for a while, then report failure trying to do a name >lookup). This is after you figured out how to set the name server up in >the first place, which was explained nowhere. I could go on and on... > >Other than that, the things I missed were job control (of course :-), the >user interface of the BSD terminal driver (though I got to kind of like >the Sys 5 termio programming interface before we pitched AIX), and a lot >of little BSD utilities (like gprof, more, diff -c, stty). > I am currently part of the NFS development team here at IBM Austin and would like to address some of the comments that Chet had to make about the NFS implementation on an RT running AIX 2.2.1. FYI: I spoke with Chet this morning and tried to find out exactly what kind of configuration that was making NFS fail so badly. I wasn't of much help because they had alreadly moved to AOS on their RT's there at Case Western. We did discuss some of the problems however. I would like to mention that here in our development group we use the AIX NFS implementation exclusively for all of our remote compilations and executions. It is used heavily over ethernet and token ring without any problems except for the occasional NFS Server not responding. The problems that Chet had with dbx may have been caused by the fact that the current NFS implementation does not support memory mapped files. As far as the problems with such a high rate of execution problems over NFS, I wasn't able to address that directly. Chet had mentioned that there may have been a Bourne shell problem that might have been part of the problem. My first reaction to Chet's posting was of total shock. We had attended this year's Connectathon with very good results and, as I have mentioned, have very few problems here. I hope those of you giving AIX the once over will give our NFS implementation a longer look before passing judgement. I don't work for marketing and don't have a desire to. I am just a developer that is concern about his product's performance in the field. Thanks, Spencer Shepler IBM Advanced Workstations Div. 11400 Burnet Rd. Austin, Texas 78759-2502 (512)823-4368
schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (10/15/89)
Spencer Shepler writes: | I am currently part of the NFS development team here at IBM Austin | and would like to address some of the comments that Chet had to | make about the NFS implementation on an RT running AIX 2.2.1. Is any work on NFS under AOS begin done? In particular, NFS version 3 and SUNRPC 4.0 would be greatly appreciated by many RT fans. -- Scott -- Scott Schwartz <schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/15/89)
In article <708@awdprime.UUCP> @cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!gumby.austin.ibm.com!shepler writes: >My first reaction to Chet's posting was of total shock. We had attended >this year's Connectathon with very good results and, as I have mentioned, >have very few problems here. I hope those of you giving AIX the once >over will give our NFS implementation a longer look before passing judgement. NFS on an RT is usable. That is about as nice as I can get. I had 'options=soft' in /etc/filesystems and was losing NFS connections whenever either the client or the server were heavily loaded. It took several days for someone to tell me to try 'options= hard,intr'. Why this isn't the default [ or hard-wired ] is a mystery. I love my RT. I'd like to have one at home. But I hated NFS enough to go steal a SCSI from someone else ;-( >I don't work for marketing and don't have a desire to. ... Could have fooled me ;-) -- John F. Haugh II +-Things you didn't want to know:------ VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832 Data: -8835 | The real meaning of MACH is ... InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org | ... Messages Are Crufty Hacks. UUCPNet: {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
jonpe@majestix.ida.liu.se (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/19/89)
In article <27415@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (keenan royle) writes: >I am curious, is there anyone out there who has used RTs running AIX as a >developement and/or production platform and is pleased. >I used them for more than a year and hate the things. I have exactly the same opinion. It seems like NOTHING is quite ready to be used yet. While I'm here: (please answer by mail if this has been discussed before - I havn't read this group very frequently due to change of situation) One thing that works sometimes and doesn't work at all most of the time is sockets across SLIP. Two of our RTs are connected via liced lines (sp?) and we sometimes have problems communicating between them. Easies way to see it is running FTP - most of the time you can get ONE transfer OK, but number two gives "Can't open ....<something with 20 in it>" 20 is the device nr of /dev/sock, right? This is probably why we can't get processes to communicate this way either. Does anyone know when the new version of NFS that supports file locking is going to be released? Or the DS that supports remote login? At the porting seminar someone mentioned that you could run DS WITH NFS, but I couldn't get any more information then. Yellow pages (someone mentioned it recently) : I've had the same problem. I've had the slave collecting everything from the master too, but ypbind wont locate the master when I try to login to the slave. Any help at all appreciated / Jonas PS. You could reply to zaphod@malmax.maxcimator.se it you wish, this is my old students account. /// /// "Are you THE Zaphod Beeblebrox ????" # d85.j-petersson@linus.liu.se __ /// # jonpe@mina.ida.liu.se , \\\/// "No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox. # Night Hacker Society (L_/T \/// Didn't you hear - I come in sixpacks !" # AUGSBBS: +46 13170660 #Z TT
jonpe@majestix.ida.liu.se (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (10/19/89)
In article <179@eliza.edvvie.at> johnny@edvvie.at (Johann Schweigl) writes: >Porting software from PD tapes is a little boring - all the good programs >are very BSD'ish. AIX/RT is not. Job control missing up to now - AIX PS/2 >has it. You know WHY it's in the PS/2? Because IBM ported UNIX three (3) times! Once from a BSD relative to PS/2, once from System V to RT and once more from BSD to the big one (the number slips my mind). Now they're merging the stuff to AIX Family. I didn't realize why I liked the PS/2 better first... / Jonas /// /// "Are you THE Zaphod Beeblebrox ????" # d85.j-petersson@linus.liu.se __ /// # jonpe@majestix.liu.se , \\\/// "No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox. # Night Hacker Society (L_/T \/// Didn't you hear - I come in sixpacks !" # AUGSBBS: +46 13170660 #Z TT