An SMP Story
jmfb...@aol.com
that I promised to write 3 years ago. The reason that I'm
writing this post is because my newsreader doesn't allow me
to COPY/PASTE from another file...sigh!
I would appreciate it if people would help fill in the blanks
which I have indicated by surrounding the questionable areas
with question marks.
Enjoy your read :-).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
[begin story]
[Version 0.3]
Once upon a time there was a company affectionately
called DEC that attracted and hired productive people.
Instead of tying their efforts down with rules and
paperwork, this company encouraged its people to think
and create. It allowed people to do real work. We
made fine stuff and we made money selling that stuff.
Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP) was a tightly coupled
system architecture that allowed any CPU to do any task,
as opposed to a master/slave architecture. TOPS-10
SMP had few exceptions, such as setting the time at
system startup. To indicate that this was a new
software design, the major monitor version number
that implemented this architecture was incremented
from 6.xx to 7.xx. We called this monitor, the piece of
the operating system that was always resident in core, 7.01.
Our customers first saw SMP as V7.01. The fact that
they ever saw it is a testament of the high regard
that DEC had for two men, James M. Flemming (JMF)
and Antony Wachs (TW); a respect that was eliminated
in a company known as Digital. This is the story
of what happened, based on personal observation
and what was told to me by JMF and TW.
Sometime, during the 6.03 development cycle and the advent
of the KL10 CPU, Jim noticed that the speed of service to
users was not very good. After we shipped 6.03, Jim did
his usual "stare at the SYSDPY" displays and created a
performance data base (I think with the help of CDO) for
further performance analysis. SYSDPY was a program
that displayed static and variable system data on a video
terminal; Chuck O'Toole did some of the formatting of
SYSDPY and also wrote a FORTRAN program that
analyzed the data ??is this correct, Chuck??
What he found absolutely floored him. When one added a
second KL10 CPU, one did not get twice the service; his
analyses showed that one only got 1.8 the expected
performance. He made slides and gave a talk about this
for DECUS stating that 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs. Now, if
there was anything that TOPS-10 developers couldn't stand,
it was degradation of performance. JMF and TW worked
the 3:00-12:00 shift so they could have the PDP-10
systems stand alone, and probably started to talk
about improvements during those wee small hours of
the A.M. when not much else was going on. Since
I was working on the accounting project in another
part of the building, I couldn't listen in on all of
their brainstorming sessions.
I remember JMF had to work really hard to convince
TW that bit-diddling the master/slave implementation
wouldn't give the performance improvements that JMF
wanted. He firmly believed that adding another CPU
to a configuration should give the system a 100%
increase of work, not 80%. Hence, SMP was born.
There was a flurry of activity. The tasks that had
to be done in order to implement SMP were written on
the backs of unpunched IBM computer cards. Keeping
lists and marking changes in listings was the best
use of cards in DEC's opinion.
One of those tasks was to make each device driver
reentrant so that the code could be run at any time
on any CPU; the data and the code had to be separated.
The two men split up the work by negotiation.
One of those negotiations was deciding who would do
FILSER, the file service routines. As a result of those
negotiations, Jim was obliged to do a lot of device drivers
just so Tony would do FILSER. In those days, nobody
touched the disk service routines without great trepidation,
lots of magic incantations and the blessings of TW who,
at the time, was considered the father of TOPS-10 due to
his longevity in the group. Jim didn't want any part of the
file system work. I don't remember how they decided who
would do SCNSER, the terminal I/O module, since
neither one wanted any part of that piece of TOPS-10.
I suspect that there was probably a wish for RCC (Bob
Clements) to come back but, instead, we managed to
hire somebody. This was an accomplishment since the
part of the PDP-10 development budget alloted to TOPS-10
was very, very small.
I remember that Jim would use his weekend work time to
make device drivers such as DTASER, the DECtape device
driver, reentrant. Jim always went into work Saturday and
Sunday mornings but he only did "fun stuff" on the weekends,
his play time.
Those development days were lively with laughter,
fights, ups and downs. A big up was the day that
the guys got the monitor to print its dot after TW
ran his macroes over the sources; we used this major
code adjustment time as an opportunity to get rid
of all the feature test switches that had become
a pain in the ass. There were just some things
that we didn't want customers to be able to turn
on and there were some things that we didn't want
customers to turn off. These feature test switches
were an archaic legacy of DEC's support commitments.
A big down was the day that the guys finally figured
out the reason for a particular set of crashes was a
race condition caused by the KL not having a write-thru
cache. That was a time when the guys thought that
they wouldn't be able to ever implement SMP; if a solution
wasn't found, we had to can the project. Jim finally
got the idea of the spin-lock mechanism to solve that
problem. JMF and TW were told many years later that
this could have been patented but the lawyers decided
it wasn't worth the trouble since the sources had
been shipped. Back in those days, if the sources
were shipped, the thinking was that the contents
was public domain. That thinking changed but I
don't remember why (if I ever knew).
The development cycle had reached the stage when Jim
and Tony were ready to talk about the product at Spring
DECUS, 1978. ??I think this is the correct year but would
like some verification??
We did all the preparations for the talk. I was the one
who did all the overheads and, believe me, getting JMF
to keep those slides readable was an effort. We attended
the party-line talks; these were the pre-DECUS meetings
where the product managers told us what we could talk
about, and, more importantly, what we couldn't talk
about. It one wanted to go to DECUS, one had to attend
one of these party-line sessions. We were to find out
later that these sessions were not complete.
Jim and Tony were very excited about telling the TOPS-10
customers about SMP. In those days, the corporate climate
with respect to TOPS-10 was not good. We felt like we were
being attacked from all sides so the anticipation of
presenting a really good idea to our customers was
important to them.
Jim and Tony did their talk about SMP. Then we went
to the product panel session. Jim and Tony sat together
towards the front of the room. I sat three chairs down
from our manager, Chuck Turley; the chairs between Chuck
and me were vacant.
The product manager, Dave ?????, gave the presentation.
One of his slides said that 6.04 was the last TOPS-10
monitor. I can't begin to describe the impact that
that slide had on the audience. After some questions,
one customer asked, "Is 6.04 the last TOPS-10 monitor?"
Dave said, "Yes." The same customer then asked, "Is SMP
in 6.04?" Dave said, "No."
I asked Chuck if he knew that this was coming. He nodded
his head miserably. I said, "Do you understand what
that implies?" Again, he nodded his head. I said,
"Did Jim and Tony know about this?" He shook his head.
I said, "Why didn't you tell them?" He said, miserably,
"We didn't know how to tell them."
The meeting broke up shortly after that. I sought out
Jim and Tony and we retired to a nook in the bar. I
didn't know how to comfort them; I was in shock myself.
I must digress here for just a minute to mention that
most of the customers left us alone in our misery. I
would like to thank them for that small gesture of
understanding. We didn't want to hobnob just then.
[As a warning to the reader, I would like to make one
thing clear before I continue. TW was the only person
in the whole world throughout all time that was allowed
to call me Babs (he pronounced it Bobs); Jim never even
tried. So, just because it's now in print, does not mean
that it will be permissable to call me that name.]
At one point, Tony asked, "What are we going to do, Babs?"
He had such a lost look on his face that I told him the
truth. I said, "Fuck'em." You see, I was pissed; I
was livid; I was beyond expressing my anger and disgust
with the way these guys had been treated by our management.
How dare they not tell Jim and Tony what was being planned.
How dare they let Jim and Tony go to DECUS and talk about
SMP, giving the customers the idea of a hint of deceit
and the impression of ineptness. How dare they allow
Jim and Tony to embarrass themselves because of their
[the managers'] cowardice? I was furious. And,
besides that, they were cancelling TOPS-10 which was a
revenue backbone of Digital Equipment Corporation.
So, back to the bar scene.
I said, "Fuck'em." Tony said, "Yea. Yea. YEA. FUCK'EM".
Then Jim said, "You know, TW, I always wanted to
have a calling card that said, 'Have EDDT, will travel'.
One of my favorite TV shows was _Have Gun, Will Travel_
and I always thought that the slogan 'have EDDT, will
travel' was sexy."
Tony got a thoughtful look on his face and the guys
started talking about a business where their expertise
in debugging and developing TOPS-10 could be exchanged
for money. We started planning then and there. SMP
would be delayed for a while but the game plan was to
get a customer to allow us to use their hardware so
that further development could continue; we had our
eye on the ORNL site for that. Since Jim and Tony
both had families, a source of income was required.
We figured that plenty of customers would want them
to solve their problems. We figured that we
wouldn't have to advertise; word-of-mouth would be
sufficient. My part would be to take the phone calls,
handle the scheduling, and be responsible for the
financial end of the business. If anything else came
up, I would handle that, too. Picking up all the loose
ends was already one of my functions at DEC. On top of
that, I would keep my job with DEC and garner lists and
information about customers with problems. Then
Tony said he had to go home (his beer limit was two).
I do not know what was said in the early morning
sessions that JMF and TW must have had. That Friday,
JMF and TW agreed that we all go away and think about
the proposal and talk with the wives. A meeting with
the wives was set for that next Sunday night at TW's
house. It was agreed that, if even one person voted
nay to the proposal, we wouldn't go ahead with it.
Meanwhile, I had to figure out how I could answer my
phone at home (my personal phone number was going to
be the customer contact) while I was working in Marlboro.
I started to think about the financial aspects of running
a business. Neither Jim nor Tony knew the rudiments of
business management. Jim didn't know how not to spend
money, and Tony didn't know how to spend money. I
quailed at the thought of having to argue business
sense to either of these men. I began to have my
doubts about the success of this business venture.
Then I thought about the impact of my saying nay on
these two men. I didn't want to hurt them; a vote
of nay would crush them. It was conceivable that I
would lose their friendship. It was guaranteed that
I would get undercut at work. I took the coward's
way out and decided to vote last. If one of the
wives said nay, I wouldn't have to vote.
We had the Meeting With the Wives that Sunday night;
Jim and Tony gave it this title. After a lot of
discussion, it was time to vote. The wives voted yea.
Tony and Jim voted yea. Then they all looked at me and
I wanted to melt through the virtual hole in the floor.
With a sinking feeling, I voted nay. Jim and Tony were
shocked. I gave them my reasons saying that I didn't
think that we knew how to run a business. After
a little more discussion, TW ended the meeting saying
there wasn't anymore to be said. I went home. Tomorrow
was Monday, another work day.
That next morning, JMF and TW got together to talk
again. I don't know what they said; I didn't really
want to ever know what they said. They did decide
to go to their manager and told me so. I said, "If
I were you, I'd go to the top and not waste a damn
second on middle management." TW suggested the next
level up. I suggested they start with Ken. JMF
and TW comprimised and got an appointment with the
head guy of LCG (I don't remember his name and
would appreciate help with this one).
Those were two very nervous people. They didn't tell
anybody about the meeting (their normal habit would have
been to tell at least the supervisor). They spent their
time drinking coffee (which didn't help nerves), walking
around, and fussing. These men never fussed. Finally,
the late morning meeting happened.
They sat down with this guy and told him about the
"6.04 is the last TOPS-10 monitor" announcement.
The guy said, "Yea, so?" Jim and Tony said, "What
do you plan for us to work on after 6.04?". Jim
and Tony proceeded to tell him that they were
seriously thinking about leaving DEC.
Now, apparently, that thought hadn't crossed management's
mind when planning this outrageous announcement. I
can't explain the idiocy; there are times when people
just don't make sense to me and this was one of those
times. The managers (those directly above Jim and Tony)
who did think this thought, didn't say anything. The
politics of getting rid of TOPS-10 were very thick and
tricky then. So silence was the easiest and safest
course to take at that time; I understand this thinking.
After that meeting, as TW would say, the fit hit the
shan. It was not a goal to lose Jim and Tony. At
that time, there were still people who were aware
that the products these guys produced made money. I
do know that somebody pointed out that most of the
budget for TOPS-10 involved Jim and Tony. If
they were going to be funded anyway, they might as
well do something like SMP (they were not welcome
in the -20 group and they did not want to work on TOPS-20).
So, to keep these two men as employees, DEC turned the
TOPS-10 SMP project back on.
From that time on, I did everything I could to smooth
the efforts of the TOPS-10 monitor group in my spare
time. That work involved from being a sounding board
at design sessions to getting cups of coffee for the
guys during intense debugging efforts. It was an
interesting time; it was an exacting time; it was
hell; it was heaven. It was frustrating; it was
satisfying. It was rarely boring; it was life.
When Tony Wachs died, I cried for three days and three
nights. Then, for three months after that, I cried
whenever Jim wasn't around because he didn't like to see
me cry. When Jim Flemming died, I cried for two years
and a month. These men were my best friends. I still
miss them.
[end of story]
John Everett
>
>When Tony Wachs died, I cried for three days and three
>nights. Then, for three months after that, I cried
>whenever Jim wasn't around because he didn't like to see
>me cry. When Jim Flemming died, I cried for two years
>and a month. These men were my best friends. I still
>miss them.
Thanks Barb, nice posting. As I've posted here before, at one time or another
I shared an office with both TW and JMF and counted them among my best
friends. While I had left DEC in 1974 (to go work with Rich Krasin at (the
old) First Data), it turns out I was around during the 6.04/7.01 era. By this
time First Data had been acquired by ADP. DEC pitched the KS-10 to ADP as a
"distributed processing" solution, but because of the tight TOPS-10 budget,
had no one working on porting the Monitor to the KS. So I came back as a
"contract worker" to do the port. It was during this period SMP was being
developed. Since the cube I'd been assigned was right next to TW's, I got to
lurk in on some of the discussions. I do recall one discussion involving
"cache sweep serial number", one of the fundamental concepts that enabled SMP
to work on the KL.
Amazingly, I don't believe I'd ever heard the story about how 7.01 was
resurrected. Either that or I've just forgotten it. I'm trying to recall which
version KS-10 support first appeared in. I know I did the port over the winter
of 77-78, and KS-10 support first officially appeared in mid-78, so I'm
guessing it was 6.04. If I'm correct, your guess that the bombshell DECUS was
in 1978 is probably also correct.
--
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/~jeverett
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Things have gotten so bad I feel the need to disguise my email address.
And I don't like this explanation because I just hate long signatures.
P98McCabe
Thanks.
p98m...@aol.com
Micheal H. McCabe
jmfb...@aol.com
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) wrote:
>In article <74ok82$vag$1...@strato.ultra.net>, jmfb...@aol.com says...
>>
>>nights. Then, for three months after that, I cried
>>whenever Jim wasn't around because he didn't like to see
>>me cry. When Jim Flemming died, I cried for two years
>>and a month. These men were my best friends. I still
>>miss them.
>
Thank you. It was difficult to write but it addressed several
goals.
> ...As I've posted here before,
>at one time or another
>I shared an office with both TW and JMF and counted them among my best
>friends. While I had left DEC in 1974 (to go work with Rich
>Krasin ...
Rich was the reason that Jim came to DEC.
>at (the
>old) First Data), it turns out I was around during the 6.04/7.01 era.
>By this time First Data had been acquired by ADP. DEC pitched the
>KS-10 to ADP as a "distributed processing" solution, but because
>of the tight TOPS-10 budget, had no one working on porting the
>Monitor to the KS. So I came back as a "contract worker" to
>do the port. It was during this period SMP was being
>developed. Since the cube I'd been assigned was right next
>to TW's, I got to lurk in on some of the discussions. I do
>recall one discussion involving "cache sweep serial number",
>one of the fundamental concepts that enabled SMP
>to work on the KL.
Yup. That was a crucial bit. A discussion would be educational.
I can't talk about it since I didn't do any of the programming.
>
>Amazingly, I don't believe I'd ever heard the story about
>how 7.01 was resurrected. Either that or I've just forgotten it.
I don't think any of us talked about it. I sure didn't tell anybody.
We were fighting for our proverbial lives back then and were
causing enough waves. Jim was definitely one who picked which wave
he wanted to send and TW was one who would rather not make any at
all :-). I was trying to keep us (DEC) afloat so old waves weren't
interesting :-).
>I'm trying to recall which version KS-10 support first
>appeared in. I know I did the port over the winter
>of 77-78, and KS-10 support first officially appeared in mid-78,
>so I'm guessing it was 6.04. If I'm correct, your guess that the
>bombshell DECUS was in 1978 is probably also correct.
>
I know I was living in this house (bought in Jan, 1977) but I just
couldn't remember which year. I didn't have anything to do with
the KS ship other than any mumbles that Magee might have made.
Do you remember who was your packager for the KS and how it was
shipped? I don't remember a KS tape. We never shipped a 6.04
and, for some reason, I seem to think that KSSER.MAC was on
the 6.03A tape.
Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my
1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have
sworn it was 1.8. But I need confirmation since my
recall features are fuzzy.
/BAH
Gregg Townsend
> Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my
> 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
> a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
> slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have
> sworn it was 1.8. But I need confirmation since my
> recall features are fuzzy.
I don't recall the original source, but at the University of Arizona it
was commonly said that "1 KL + 1 KL = .8 KL". Multiprocessor performance
was so disappointing that we split our system in half and ran it as two
independent systems ("AZONE and AZTWO") for a long time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Townsend Gould-Simpson Building g...@cs.arizona.edu
Staff Scientist 1040 E. 4th St. 32 13 45N 110 57 16W
Dept. of Computer Science PO Box 210077 tel: +1 520 621 4325
The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721-0077 fax: +1 520 621 4246
Richard M. Alderson III
>Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was
>incorrect and should have a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
>slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have sworn it was 1.8. But
>I need confirmation since my recall features are fuzzy.
The official figure, one which I have heard for years, is 1.8. It appears from
the operating systems literature of 15 years ago to be approximately correct
for all tightly coupled multiprocessor systems (yeah, at one time I read that
stuff for fun). Loosely coupled systems such as CI-clustered -20's running
NEBULA were a lot closer to 1 + 1 = 2, maybe 1.95?
--
Rich Alderson Last LOTS Tops-20 Systems Programmer, 1984-1991
Current maintainer, MIT TECO EMACS (v. 170)
last name @ XKL dot COM Chief systems administrator, XKL LLC, 1998-now
jmfb...@aol.com
alde...@netcom.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) wrote:
>In article <74r549$9hi$2...@ligarius.ultra.net> jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>
>>Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was
>>incorrect and should have a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what
Jim's
>>slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have sworn it was 1.8.
But
>>I need confirmation since my recall features are fuzzy.
>
>The official figure, one which I have heard for years, is 1.8. It appears
from
>the operating systems literature of 15 years ago to be approximately
correct
>for all tightly coupled multiprocessor systems (yeah, at one time I read
that
>stuff for fun). Loosely coupled systems such as CI-clustered -20's
running
>NEBULA were a lot closer to 1 + 1 = 2, maybe 1.95?
Well, they were counting differently but that's another story.
15 years ago was post-SMP. I'm looking for the figures that
Jim used to justify doing SMP. I don't know if I have those
slides since I didn't clean my desk out back then. There was
quite a bit of stuff that went missing. I suppose I should
open my boxes and see if I have any of that stuff left. It's
a tad wrenching and I just wanted to avoid that at this time.
Another small story...I opened a box (I'm trying to dump all
the junk in this house) and found a nastygram from Gordon Bell.
We had knockdown, drag-out almost as soon as I started working
at DEC. Remember those 3-deep parking spaces in the 12-1 parking
lot? He didn't like the way I parked :-). Of course, he wasn't
willing to cooperatively park (as was the convention back then)
so that I could be the first out that noon. I sussed him out
right away.
Of course, for some strange reason, my immediate supervisor
and managers got all hot and bothered with the delivery of
that note. I guess I was feisty from the beginning :-;.
/BAH
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
g...@CS.Arizona.EDU (Gregg Townsend) wrote:
>In article <74r549$9hi$2...@ligarius.ultra.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
>> a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
>> slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have
>> sworn it was 1.8. But I need confirmation since my
>> recall features are fuzzy.
>
>was commonly said that "1 KL + 1 KL = .8 KL". Multiprocessor performance
>was so disappointing that we split our system in half and ran it as two
>independent systems ("AZONE and AZTWO") for a long time.
Was that the master/slave implementation or the SMP implementation?
IIR, one UoA's problems was that most of the hardware was hung
off one of the KLs with no pathway to the second KL. Since they
didn't want to spend money on the extra hardware to make the
dual system truly SMP, they just split the system up into to
separate systems.
/BAH
skyw...@my-dejanews.com
between 79-85 at MR01, and was not quite sure what
was going on at the time :)
Secondly: I have a T Shirt that I got from a friend
after I left, that said
FRONT: TOPS-10
VERSION 7.03
BACK: CI TOLD YOU ...
NI KNEW
WE COULD DO IT!
I remembered the hardware retrofit of NI and CI
into the 1090 cabinet, but thought it was only
a TOPS-20 project..
In article <74u1bg$4kf$5...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <ALDERSON.98...@netcom.netcom.com>,
> alde...@netcom.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) wrote:
> >In article <74r549$9hi$2...@ligarius.ultra.net> jmfb...@aol.com writes:
> >
> >>Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was
> >>incorrect and should have a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what
> Jim's
> >>slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have sworn it was 1.8.
> But
> >>I need confirmation since my recall features are fuzzy.
> >
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Everett
>
>Remember those 3-deep parking spaces in the 12-1 parking
>lot?
Yes; remember when DEC decided to have a member of the "security force" work
the three-deep in the morning to ensure rational parking. One morning during
this period I wheeled into the lot, pulled nose out, and had started to back
into one of the slots when my steering shaft broke. The security guy started
waving angrily at me to get parked. I just held up my hands and shrugged, so
he started walking over to obviously "straighten me out". I rolled down my
window, and when he reached my car I gave the steering wheel a spin and asked,
"what do suggest I should do?" as the wheel just continued to spin. The look
on his face was priceless.
I've often wondered about my luck. It could have easily snapped when I was
going 50+ up Parker Street, but waited until I was practically stopped in the
lot. Whew!
Not much to do with SMP however.
jmfb...@aol.com
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) wrote:
>In article <74u1bg$4kf$5...@ligarius.ultra.net>, jmfb...@aol.com says...
>>
>>Remember those 3-deep parking spaces in the 12-1 parking
>>lot?
>
>Yes; remember when DEC decided to have a member of the "security
>force" work the three-deep in the morning to ensure rational
>parking.
> The look on his face was priceless.
:-)
>
>I've often wondered about my luck. It could have easily snapped when I was
>going 50+ up Parker Street, but waited until I was practically stopped
>in the lot. Whew!
I would have been more worried about Thompson Street. Those fences
wouldn't have stopped very much.
>
>Not much to do with SMP however.
>
No. But it has to do with memories :-).
/BAH
Huw Davies
: In article <74r549$9hi$2...@ligarius.ultra.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
: > Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my
: > 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
: > a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
: > slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have
: > sworn it was 1.8. But I need confirmation since my
: > recall features are fuzzy.
: I don't recall the original source, but at the University of Arizona it
: was commonly said that "1 KL + 1 KL = .8 KL". Multiprocessor performance
: was so disappointing that we split our system in half and ran it as two
: independent systems ("AZONE and AZTWO") for a long time.
I'm not surprised that 1 KL + 1 KL = .8 KL. This was what some VAX users
found with the 11/782 which (from my limited understanding of -10 ASMP)
is not too surprising. With SMP I'd be happy for 1+1=1.8.
--
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.D...@latrobe.edu.au
Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3 9479 1999
La Trobe University | "If God had wanted soccer to be played
Melbourne Australia 3083 | in the air, the sky would be green"
slu...@my-dejanews.com
> Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my
> 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
> a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
> slides said?
From 1979 to 1980, I was a WPI student contract worker in Marlboro. I
worked in Frank DiPace's group for a guy named Leavitt (can't remember
his first name). Frank reported to Tim Beers. This was on the second
floor, right down the hall from the Big Machine Room. I forget who my
partner was (although I'm sure I'll remember that about 8 minutes
after I post this). Our faculty advisor was Robert E. Kinicki who is
now the chairman of the computer science department at WPI.
Our project was to redesign a piece of software that read backup
(DUMPER) tapes and built an on-line catalog of files that existed on
each tape. The previous version of this software was a proof-of-
concept that was written in COBOL. It basically read through DUMPER
tapes and stored each backup entry as a fixed length ASCII record with
structure and directory names in a flat file. The catalog file would
get ...really... large and ...really.... slow after a while.
Our final design was to put some hooks into DUMPER and record the
backup information in real time to a real data base. We were far less
qualified then we thought and the project goals were far larger than
either of us imagined... Does any of this sound familiar? So, while
we did do a pretty good job of low level data base design (b-tree
indices and hashed searches), we ran out of time and never completed
the implementation. Sigh...
Anyway, in early 1979, a couple of people came from WPI to Marlboro
for the annual Digital/WPI Co-Op Dog And Pony Show. The each student
team was accompanied by a faculty advisor and some DEC representatives
would sing the latest corporate propaganda in four part harmony about
how Just Dandy everything was. We couldn't understand why they were
spending so much time telling us about the Vax, which we thought had a
rather damaged OS and virtual memory subsystem. But, anyway...
WPI only had one student contract team at Marlboro that year, so the
three of us got a pretty detailed tour of manufacturing and other
areas. When we walked through the Big Machine Room, Tops-10 SMP was
still fairly new. Its features were appropriately chanted in quite
reverent and solemn tones by our guide. When we asked about it, he
gave us the sacred saga of the SMP 'project' and related that pre-SMP
(KA model Master/Slave) performance was 0.8 KL. Yes, you read that
correctly. I remember this figure because we were quite shocked to
think that sticking two KL's together would get you less speed. It
really had an impact on us.
I believe that the post-SMP figure was approximately 1.5 KL
performance for dual KL's, but it depended on what you were doing. I
remember that not all devices could be dual ported (RP06's could) and
if you were running on one CPU and were doing I/O for a device that
was on another CPU's massbus, the your system would issue a queue
request for the other system to do something and put you to sleep
until the I/O completed. This could have a negative impact on your
dispatch time, depending on what else was going on.
Other things that made an impression on me: the snack area upstairs in
manufacturing! This was one of the first times I had ever used a
microwave oven. Remember those cheeseburgers? Bla... I don't know
how many I ate along with Mountain Dew, the Jolt Cola of the '70's.
Definately too many late nights hacking tapes...
So, now that I've helped you remember something, I was wondering if
you could help me remember something. One thing that I always got a
kick out of were the sign on banners for each machine. As I usually
worked from about 8:00PM to 2:00AM (less people around), I would
sometimes wander around the machine room, poke around with the KI's
front panel and do SYSTAT's on the 20's. They all had goofy sign on
banners and I have been trying to remember them. Here's what I can
remember:
Serial Banner Notes
====== ====== =====
1031 The Great Pumpkin Welcomes You KL running Tops-20 & DECtape!
2102 Tops-20 Monitor Development Not always too stable...
? Gus, The Languages System Fortan, Algol
2263 Orange Blossum Express! Uh, can't remember ...
2116 The Big Orange Welcomes You Our group's system
--T
--
T h o m a s . D e B e l l i s @NoSpam C i t i c o r p . C o m
Remove spaces and NoSpam for direct email
Gregg Townsend
>
> I don't recall the original source, but at the University of Arizona it
> was commonly said that "1 KL + 1 KL = .8 KL". Multiprocessor performance
> was so disappointing that we split our system in half and ran it as two
> independent systems ("AZONE and AZTWO") for a long time.
In article <74u1n1$4kf$6...@ligarius.ultra.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
> Was that the master/slave implementation or the SMP implementation?...
That was master/slave; SMP wasn't available to us yet (1977).
Eventually, after SMP came out, the systems were recombined.
Our job mix contained mostly editing tasks -- lots of interrupts.
The master/slave configuration lost more in synchronization
costs than it gained by having a second processor.
Smith and O'Halloran
>1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
>a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's slides said?
I don't have a copy of the slides, but this is what I remember:
Master/Slave: 1 KL + 1 KL = 0.8 KL (major performance hit)
SMP: 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KL (20% overhead)
Tri-SMP: 1 KL + 1 KL + 1 KL = 2.7 KL (30%, 3rd CPU costs less than 2nd)
Quad-SMP: = 3.7 KL (30% overhead, 4th CPU is free)
5 and 6 CPU configurations: allowed by software, not supported by DEC.
-Joe
--
INWAP.COM is Joe Smith, Sally Smith and our cat Murdock.
(The O'Hallorans and their cats moved to http://www.tyedye.org/ Nov-98.)
See http://www.inwap.com/ for PDP-10, "ReBoot", "Shadow Raiders"/"War Planets"
Alan H. Martin
> ... I was wondering if
> you could help me remember something. One thing that I always got a
> kick out of were the sign on banners for each machine. As I usually
> worked from about 8:00PM to 2:00AM (less people around), I would
> sometimes wander around the machine room, poke around with the KI's
> front panel and do SYSTAT's on the 20's. They all had goofy sign on
> banners and I have been trying to remember them. Here's what I can
> remember:
>
> Serial Banner Notes
> ====== ====== =====
...
> ? Gus, The Languages System Fortan, Algol
KL2137
Eventually there was MRFORT for Fortran and LINK. I just can't recall the S/N
at the moment; something in the high 2000's. It was in a secured data center
on the first floor (not the marketing fishbowl, either), so you wouldn't see
it wandering around.
/AHM
--
Alan Howard Martin AMa...@MA.UltraNet.Com
Tovar
a three processor system: KL10, KA10, and PDP-6! Only the KL ran ordinary
user programs, but the KA and the -6 did run real-time user programs, as
well as the XGP (granddaddy of the laser printer, which was, ironically
enough, a recycled fax machine), the first full-scale real-time digital
synthesizer, and various other obscure peripherals.
-- TVR
Sarr J. Blumson
Presumably not running as an SMP system? :-). For a long time ADP ran with
a configuration of KIs and KLs that did the actual work, with KAs that
shared memory with groups of them and switched terminal traffic by
moving it between various machines "mailbox" regions. The KAs were
eventually upgraded to KIs.
Other folks who visit here occasionally can describe this setup more
clearly.
--
--------
Sarr Blumson sa...@umich.edu
voice: +1 734 764 0253 home: +1 734 665 9591
ITD, University of Michigan http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sarr/
519 W William, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
Smith and O'Halloran
Sarr J. Blumson <sa...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Presumably not running as an SMP system? :-). For a long time ADP ran with
>a configuration of KIs and KLs that did the actual work, with KAs that
>shared memory with groups of them and switched terminal traffic by
>moving it between various machines "mailbox" regions.
At Tymshare, the PDP-10s were connected to the Tymnet Network by "bases",
minicomputers that spoke the Tymnet protocol via sync lines and had DMA access
to the -10's memory. For the KI and KL, the first base was a modified
Interdata minicomputer. This was later replaced by a board with a 68000 CPU
that plugged in to a Tymnet Engine. The KS and Foonleys had a PDP-11 doing
DMA.
Terminal I/O did not cause interrupts to the PDP-10. Instead, the -10 checked
its input ring buffer at clock level (60 times per second). Messages with
1 to 168 bytes were packed into shared memory with 4 bytes per word. Other
message types included circuit-zap (hang up the phone), backpressure (flow
control that did not preclude the use of Control-S and Control-Q) and terminal
settings.
slu...@my-dejanews.com
So, here's the latest list. Anybody remember the others? I think this
was every 10 up there except for that beautiful KI... Boy am I sorry I
never walked off with the switch register to that baby! (Got KA #6 tho..)
Serial Banner Notes
====== ====== =====
1031 The Great Pumpkin Welcomes You KL running Tops-20 & DECtape!
2102 Tops-20 Monitor Development Not always too stable...
2136 DEC-Marlboro ARPAnet!
2137 Gus, The Languages System Fortan, Algol
2263 Orange Blossum Express! Uh, can't remember ...
2116 The Big Orange Welcomes You Our group's system
In article <367866F1...@MA.UltraNet.Com>,
--
T h o m a s . D e B e l l i s @NoSpam C i t i c o r p . C o m
Remove spaces and NoSpam for direct em
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Everett
says...
>
>For a long time ADP ran with
>a configuration of KIs and KLs that did the actual work, with KAs that
>shared memory with groups of them and switched terminal traffic by
>eventually upgraded to KIs.
>
>Other folks who visit here occasionally can describe this setup more
>clearly.
Sarr, would I count among those "other folks"? Actually I spent my entire
time at ADP Network Services in Management, so never delved into the guts of
the Communications KA-10s ("CKAs", later "CKIs").
Because of the nature of Cyphernetics' (acquired by ADP to become the kernal
of ADPNS) business, many of the problems later solved in more "standard"
ways by the telecommunications industry were addressed in unique ways. The
need for bridge/routers was solved by using KA-10s as "front ends" to the
timesharing systems through shared memory interfaces. Using Cyphernetics'
proprietary peer-to-peer protocol, the CKAs were treated as just another
node on the network. All remote communication found it's way to the "central
systems" through the CKAs. A serendipitous by-product was a very high speed
path between central systems.
Nick Carter (probably the best programmer I ever worked with) took advantage
of this capability by creating a system (and set of protocols that pre-dates
ftp) called MOVER that became the basis for all intersystem file exchanges.
Within a very short time MOVER became an integral and essential component of
the company's ability to conduct business. All software distribution and
accounting data collection was done via MOVER. At its zenith ADPNS was
supporting something like 30+ KI and/or KL central systems at three data
centers (Ann Arbor, MI; Waltham, MA; and London, UK) and something like 100
KS-10 based, remotely operated "ADP/Onsites". I think we were even
supporting a pair of remote KIs at Jaguar at one time.
To paraphrase something I came across recently, "Everything in computing was
invented in the '60s."
Alan H. Martin
> So, here's the latest list. Anybody remember the others? I think this
> was every 10 up there except for that beautiful KI... Boy am I sorry I
> never walked off with the switch register to that baby! (Got KA #6 tho..)
>
> Serial Banner Notes
> ====== ====== =====
> 1031 The Great Pumpkin Welcomes You KL running Tops-20 & DECtape!
> 2102 Tops-20 Monitor Development Not always too stable...
> 2136 DEC-Marlboro ARPAnet!
> 2137 Gus, The Languages System Fortan, Algol
> 2263 Orange Blossum Express! Uh, can't remember ...
> 2116 The Big Orange Welcomes You Our group's system
Here's a partial list:
2 TOPS-10 PDP-10 Engineering Maynard, MA KA10
28 TOPS-10 DEC (then, a customer) Maynard, MA KA10
40 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
169 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
246 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
514 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KI10
546 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KI10
1026 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KL10 SMP
1031 TOPS-20 Hard Dev DEC, Marlboro KL10
1042 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KL10 SMP
1079 TOPS-10 DEC ISSG Maynard, MA KL10
1322 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KL10 SMP
2102 TOPS-20 Soft Dev DEC, Marlboro KL20
2116 TOPS-20 Galaxy Development DEC, Marlboro KL20
2136 TOPS-20 Soft Dev DEC, Marlboro KL20
2137 TOPS-20 Layered Products Dev. DEC, Marlboro KL20
2152 TOPS-20 Mill 20 Maynard, MA KL20
2244 TOPS-20 Marketing DEC, Marlboro KL20 MARKET
2263 TOPS-20 Diag. Eng. DEC, Marlboro KL20?
2476 TOPS-10 HOSS DEC, Marlboro KL1091 SMP
2866 TOPS-20 Development DEC, Marlboro KL20 CLOYD
2871 TOPS-20 Development DEC, Marlboro KL20 GIDNEY
4097 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KS2020 TWINKY
4101 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KS2020
4145 TOPS-20 Soft Dev DEC, Marlboro KS20 GINSU
I don't see an entry for STORS, a PDP-10 used by Storage Systems in the Mill.
And I *still* don't see an entry for MRFORT.
However, since 2263 was Orange Blossom, I figure it had to run Tops-20; the
list didn't know that until now.
skyw...@my-dejanews.com
I had accounts on KL2263, and KL1031, they were really nice systems.
Then the accounts moved to the lame Barnum and Bailey 11/780 VAX Cluster.
System Admin could never figure out how to tune the Cluster, it was
always going down. I missed the KL's.
>
> I don't see an entry for STORS, a PDP-10 used by Storage Systems in the Mill.
> And I *still* don't see an entry for MRFORT.
>
> However, since 2263 was Orange Blossom, I figure it had to run Tops-20; the
> list didn't know that until now.
> /AHM
> --
> Alan Howard Martin AMa...@MA.UltraNet.Com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ivy
Was once known as MRSMEG
???? TOPS-10 ????? KL10 MrChip
???? TOPS-10 ????? KL10 MrDale
4711 TOPS-10 CSSE? DEC, Marlboro KS10
???? xxxxxx ????? KL10 Cherry
???? TOPS-10?? DEC,Marlboro KL10 RONCO - Operators on Duty
'til midnight
RONCO - Slices, Dices and Julian Fries
Mark :)
jmfb...@aol.com
"Alan H. Martin" <AMa...@MA.UltraNet.Com> wrote:
>slu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Here's a partial list:
>
> 2 TOPS-10 PDP-10 Engineering Maynard, MA KA10
Nope. That was the system the TOPS10 monitor group used.
My first encounter was on 3-5 and was later moved to 5-5.
> 28 TOPS-10 DEC (then, a customer) Maynard, MA KA10
I don't remember this system at all.
> 40 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
Nope. This was the system that CS/2 had; it was the timesharing
system for the rest of DEC and was in 5-B. Later it got transfered
to the TOPS10 monitor group when CS/2 got their KI. The systems 2
and 40 were combined for the dual KA test bed for the -10 monitor
group in Marlboro.
> 169 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
> 246 TOPS-10 Development Maynard, MA KA10
I don't remember these two machines.
> 514 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KI10
> 546 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KI10
These two machines belonged to the -10 monitor group and were used
for the KI dual processor development and testing in Maynard 5-5.
JMFBAH
wrote a FORTRAN program that took the SYSDPY data
and did something with it. If somebody could give
CDO a kick or two to describe what he did, I'll be able
to include it in my final copy of the story.
BAH said:
> Also, somebody else sent me mail saying that my
> 1 KL + 1 KL = 1.8 KLs was incorrect and should have
> a sum of .8 KL. Can anybody remember what Jim's
> slides said? I typed the bloody things and could have
> sworn it was 1.8. But I need confirmation since my
> recall features are fuzzy.
[Begin RDH story]
I pretty clearly recall talking with JMF about 1+1 ranging from 0.95
to roughly 2.3 (man was he *proud* of that 2.3!). What do you want me
to prove, I can write a benchmark to display it . . .
Also, I think this was after Jim spent all those hours staring at
SYSDPY output, but I put a lot of effort into enhancing SYSDPY's
output, cramming a lot of info into a mere 24x40 display (the other
24x40 was reserved for *jobs* -- SYSDPY's forte, after all). I still
remember "discovering" that the KL had this perf board -- an ENTIRE PC
BOARD dedicated to just measuring things. And noone seemed to know
about it, let alone use it for something! Mine! All Mine! Remember
SYSDPY with all those RH20 channels and PI usages columns . . . (I
was like a kid in a candy store!) That got me on a roll, and I kept
pestering those guys (the Jim and Tony show!) to give me numbers. Disk
blocks transferred. Paging calls. Since I was at least semi-defacto
owner of SCNSER by then, I "was free" to put in my own tty numbers;
ditto NETSER and network numbers. I still remember Tony's
not-quite-sure-what-to-do-with-me looks when I would pester him for
per-disk str numbers "so I can display them". I eventually won him
over. He liked it, even! (HIGH praise, then, fer sur!).
I remember my first introduction to Jim. I was still very new then
(probably just a months or two...), and I was absolutely revelling in
the ability to just walk into the lab and pull down a honest-to-god
real-life SOURCE LISTING and just read it. Like I belonged, there,
even! Anyway, there I was, poring over lines of cabalist ritual, and I
came across this "CONO P1,PIOFF" instruction. Duh??? I spent *ages*
looking at that instruction, going back to the hardware reference
manual, back to the listing, back and forth. I finally gave up in
utter frustration and defeat: I just don't understand what this
instruction is supposed to do. I asked Mike Gilbert about it, and he
couldn't figure it out either, so as Jim walked by, he asked him about
it. Jim glanced at it, pulled his pencil out, and scrawled in a "PI"
for the "P1", tagged the listing with one of those ever-present cards,
and went on about his business. Wow! MY FIRST MONITOR BUG, found just
by inspection . . . (Well, OK, in a previous life as a starving college
student, I found a fair amount of interesting system bugs...but this
was different.)
[End of RDH story]
John Everett
says...
>
>[Begin RDH story]
>
>I remember my first introduction to Jim. <snip> Jim glanced at it, pulled
>
Reminds me of how painful it was to watch Jim try to write anything. :-)
jmfb...@aol.com
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) wrote:
>In article <19981222080145...@ng145.aol.com>, jmf...@aol.com
>says...
>>
>>[Begin RDH story]
>>
>>I remember my first introduction to Jim. <snip> Jim glanced at it, pulled
>>his pencil out, and scrawled in a "PI" for the "P1"
>>
>>[End of RDH story]
>
>Reminds me of how painful it was to watch Jim try to write anything. :-)
>
Yup. That improved somewhat after I started making him eat
vegetables but his lack of motor control never really went
away. At least he wrote large letters...unlike Kalman.
/BAH
Alan H. Martin
> 1322 TOPS-10 Development DEC, Marlboro KL10 SMP
> Was once known as MRSMEG
I had that recorded; it must have wrapped and gotten discarded before posting.
Thanks for mentioning MRCHIP, MRDALE, KS4711, CHERRY and RONCO.