Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:29:59 -0500
In article <5su4rgF1apm8rU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, comp.arch,
delcecchinospamofthenorth@xxxxxxxxx says...
Eric Smith wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote:
I just remember how I made a practice ofThe metastability issues in the model 85?
hitting save every 5 minutes while entering simulation models into a 2260
connected to a model 85 running MTMT (Rochester's home grown Multiple
Terminal Monitor Task written because TSO was such a pig, and VM wasn't
around) because the likelyhood of the system crashing was so high. We
got them because a customer gave them back -- story involved threats of
tossing off cliffs or perhaps dumping in rivers but that is all folklore.
It was years later I met some guys in E. Fishkill who said that it was
metastability in the cache interface somewhere. Perhaps the old faux
paux of sampling an asynchronous signal in more than one place.
So did they eventually fix these in the field? I don't know how many
85s were built, but I can't imagine that they took them all back and
flogged them off cheap to universities.
I don't think many were built. The model 90 or 91 came out and then
370. I wonder if somewhere there is a site with the production statistics?
There were a pile of 'em in P'ok. ISTR they were "pre-purchased"
from customers.
--
Keith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- References:
- Re: Floating-point myths [was Re: segmentation or lack thereof]
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: Floating-point myths [was Re: segmentation or lack thereof]
- From: John Dallman
- Re: Floating-point myths [was Re: segmentation or lack thereof]
- From: John L
- Re: Floating-point myths [was Re: segmentation or lack thereof]
- From: Stephen Fuld
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: John L
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Stephen Fuld
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Stephen Fuld
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Eric Smith
- Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: Floating-point myths [was Re: segmentation or lack thereof]
- Prev by Date: Re: Total CPU+code density (was Re: Fazing out x86)
- Next by Date: Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- Previous by thread: Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- Next by thread: Re: IBM mainframe history, was Floating-point myths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|