Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!arizona!whm From: whm@arizona.edu (Bill Mitchell) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Qs about MicroVAX UNIX availability Message-ID: <3076@megaron.arizona.edu> Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 18:26:12 EST Article-I.D.: megaron.3076 Posted: Thu Dec 3 18:26:12 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Dec-87 06:42:49 EST Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 37 We're considering the purchase of a couple of MicroVAX systems to do some kernel hacking and such and I'm trying to get clear on what runs on what. Here's the situation as I understand it; any corrections are welcome. There are two basic MicroVAX systems: the MicroVAX II and the MicroVAX 2000. Both systems have the basic CPU, but the II has a Qbus while the 2000 has disk and tape directly connected to the CPU, thus saving the cost and complexity of the Qbus. MicroVAX packages with a display tube are called VAXstations. We're currently running 4.3+NFS from Mt. Xinu and they say that their system will run on a MicroVAX II, but not a 2000, due to the new interconnect technology. It is my understanding that 4.3 direct from UCB does not run on a MicroVAX II. Ultrix support is available for both the II and the 2000, but it would be much easier for us to stay with 4.3+NFS and just run that on all our VAXs. It is my understanding that only Ultrix supports the display tube driver. Therefore, if we're planning on running 4.3+NFS, the tube wouldn't be of much use. (Or does anyone know of tube driver available for 4.3+NFS?) I'm also unclear on the initial bootstrap situation. It appears that if you've got an Ultrix machine around you don't need a tape drive to do the initial loading and get an Ultrix up and running. Once you've done this, I'd assume that you could replace Ultrix with 4.3+NFS. In our case, this would require us to rely on someone else's Ultrix and I'm not sure that I like that. We could get one TK50 and move it from one machine to the other on the (hopefully) rare occasions when a machine needs a tape, but that seems a little hokey, so maybe the best best is to just put a TK50 on each machine. If you can offer knowledgeable corrections and/or suggestions on any of the above, I would certainly appreciate it. Bill Mitchell whm@arizona.edu {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4,noao}!arizona!whm