From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 3 Apr 2005 14:36:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.70 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112564190 4547 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2005 21:36:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:36:30 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.70; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202212 In my recent reading and web searches, I have learned some interesting and unexpected facts about the use of microcode with the IBM System/360. I knew that of the original 360 models, only the Model 75 was hardwired, the rest being microcoded. And, I believe I have heard that the Model 195, and, by extension, the Model 91 and 95, were also hardwired. But I was surprised to learn, recently, that the Model 85 used microcode. According to the article I read that mentioned this, IBM would have used microcode for the 75, but was forced to use hardwired logic because they had no sufficiently fast read-only memory available. But even more recently, I learned something even more startling. The IBM System/360 Model 40 definitely was microprogrammed; a FE manual on Al Kossow's site shows the microcode format for it. But, according to the Functional Characteristics book for the Model 44, it, too, had *hardwired* control logic. This let it run faster, but meant that the decimal and character instructions were not available as options for it. John Savard ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 03 Apr 2005 14:52:03 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112565124 64.62.206.2 (3 Apr 2005 14:52:04 -0700) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.moat.net!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!news.spies.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202213 John Savard wrote: > I have learned some interesting > and unexpected facts about the use of microcode with the IBM > System/360. Hardwired: 360/44 360/75 360/91 360/95 360/195 370/195 All other 360 and 370 models are microcoded. > But I was surprised to learn, recently, that the Model 85 used > microcode. It was later, so more advanced ROS (ROM) technology was available for the control store. The 360/85 was also the first model to use cache memory. I suspect that the 360/85 microarchitecture became the basis for the 370/165, but I haven't read the CE manuals so I couldn't say with any high degree of certainty. > But even more recently, I learned something even more startling. The > IBM System/360 Model 40 definitely was microprogrammed; a FE manual on > Al Kossow's site shows the microcode format for it. > > But, according to the Functional Characteristics book for the Model 44, > it, too, had *hardwired* control logic. This let it run faster, but > meant that the decimal and character instructions were not available as > options for it. Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very odd beast. ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 3 Apr 2005 17:36:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1112575010.070563.291420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.102 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112575015 6212 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2005 00:36:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:36:55 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.102; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202216 Eric Smith wrote: > Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation > between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very > odd beast. Besides the size and price, they do have very similar-looking front panels. Given that the 360/40 is microcoded, and the 360/44 is hardwired, I suppose they would have to be unrelated; but I would have expected that as much as possible of the circuitry (which wouldn't have been much) might have overlapped. Interestingly enough, Pugh, Johnson, and Palmer doesn't even mention the 360/44 in the index! John Savard ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.129.203 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 44 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:40:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1112575226 24.71.223.147 (Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:40:26 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:40:26 MDT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202217 On 03 Apr 2005 14:52:03 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Eric Smith wrote: >John Savard wrote: >> I have learned some interesting >> and unexpected facts about the use of microcode with the IBM >> System/360. > >Hardwired: 360/44 360/75 360/91 360/95 360/195 370/195 > >All other 360 and 370 models are microcoded. > >> But I was surprised to learn, recently, that the Model 85 used >> microcode. > >It was later, so more advanced ROS (ROM) technology was available >for the control store. > >The 360/85 was also the first model to use cache memory. > >I suspect that the 360/85 microarchitecture became the basis for the >370/165, but I haven't read the CE manuals so I couldn't say with any >high degree of certainty. > >> But even more recently, I learned something even more startling. The >> IBM System/360 Model 40 definitely was microprogrammed; a FE manual on >> Al Kossow's site shows the microcode format for it. >> >> But, according to the Functional Characteristics book for the Model 44, >> it, too, had *hardwired* control logic. This let it run faster, but >> meant that the decimal and character instructions were not available as >> options for it. > >Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation >between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very >odd beast. Presumably the 360/44 was either a process or scientific machine? -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 3 Apr 2005 17:42:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: <1112575354.848208.191490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112575010.070563.291420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.102 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112575359 6518 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2005 00:42:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1112575010.070563.291420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.102; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202218 jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > Besides the size and price, they do have very similar-looking front > panels. I see from http://www.thegalleryofoldiron.com/2044.HTM that this is less true than I thought... John Savard ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 3 Apr 2005 17:44:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 11 Message-ID: <1112575483.698246.320060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.102 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112575488 17992 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2005 00:44:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:44:48 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.102; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202219 Brian Inglis wrote: > Presumably the 360/44 was either a process or scientific machine? Yes, that is precisely true. It had additional interrupt facilities, in addition to higher performance floating-point than other computers in its range. John Savard ###### From: "Sam Drake" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 3 Apr 2005 19:00:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <1112580037.725745.188430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112575483.698246.320060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.165.208.103 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112580042 23453 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2005 02:00:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:00:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1112575483.698246.320060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.165.208.103; posting-account=l2rSTgwAAAB4aV5nHOASVqtu1_0ueR2D Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!blackbush.cw.net!cw.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202223 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > Brian Inglis wrote: > > Presumably the 360/44 was either a process or scientific machine? > Yes, that is precisely true. > > It had additional interrupt facilities, in addition to higher > performance floating-point than other computers in its range. When I was in school (late 70s) we used a 360/44, and I studied it quite a bit. The 44 had transistorized registers, instead of registers made from core memory as the other models did at the time. It was also (mostly) hard-wired rather than microcoded. The 44 didn't implement the entire 360 instruction set. The subset implemented was oriented towards scientific computing; all of the 6 byte long instructions were unimplemented. These instructions included decimal arithmetic and memory-to-memory moves. Bottom line was that it was a super Fortran computer and a lousy COBOL computer. I called the 44 "mostly" hardwired because it had hardware provisions for running an "emulator" to implement te missing instructions. The front console had the standard "Initial Program Load" (modern translation: "boot") button, as well as a 44-specific "Emulator Load" button. We had a magic card deck, kept in a locked drawer, that contained the "Dublin Emulator" that completed te instruction set. After any power down we had to boot the emulator, and then could boot the OS. I spent some time with the 44 Principles Of Operations manual. The "emulator" ran in what was referred to as the "negative address space" - with addresses < 0. Whenever an "illegal operation" error was about to be flagged, due to an illegal opcode, rather than loading the program new PSW as a 360 normally would it instead flipped to the "negative address space" to give the emulator a chance at it. I only vaguely remember any other details, but it was truly wacky. ...Sam (Naturally, by the time I saw it, it was being used primarily by undergraduate COBOL classes. AACK.) ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.129.203 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,bit.listserv.ibm-main Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112575010.070563.291420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1112575354.848208.191490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 05:35:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1112592902 24.71.223.147 (Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:35:02 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:35:02 MDT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202236 On 3 Apr 2005 17:42:34 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: >jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > >> Besides the size and price, they do have very similar-looking front >> panels. > >I see from > >http://www.thegalleryofoldiron.com/2044.HTM > >that this is less true than I thought... Great site for IBM mainframe history with pictures. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:44:48 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112575483.698246.320060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: Rob Warnock, Consulting Systems Architect X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) Originator: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:44:48 -0500 Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.93.131.53 X-Trace: sv3-uCk85t7Dqq4OIoqRdRVzqMLVw9HW7hKWe+cuHmuhXZ0a+TMh5/Nt30nkOded165DK6bP0m77jTb0Rp/!bkJKlqfgyL5JS8O60e0rSFFxANqpDaWWeDKz1Y6ItZvWzZQBMeKoHH/iTVJBGEdzHz46Rj0E+4jY!wnniwforg+HmAw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202245 wrote: +--------------- | Brian Inglis wrote: | > Presumably the 360/44 was either a process or scientific machine? | | Yes, that is precisely true. | It had additional interrupt facilities, in addition to higher | performance floating-point than other computers in its range. +--------------- I worked in a university computing lab in the late 1960's, and when we were replacing an IBM 1410 (which had been connected to some Adage A/D & D/A converters) with a new machine the finalists were an SDS [or XDS] Sigma 7, an Adage Ambilog 200, an IBM 360/44, and an RCA Spectra-70/55. The 360/44 was being considered for its realtime capabilities and some special interfacing hooks, but the Spectra-70 won out [and I had to build a bus/tag channel adapter from it to our analog/hybrid gear -- anybody remember the CATSUP signal?]. A few years later I was working in a different department, this time replacing an IBM 1620, and the finalists were an IBM 360/44 and a DEC PDP-10. The PDP-10 won [and became one of my all-time favorite machines!]. The useful weirdnesses of the 360/44 were just not enough in many cases to overcome its lack of general competitiveness, I suspect. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock 627 26th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607 ###### From: Joe Morris Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: The MITRE Organization Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.29.24.19 X-Trace: newslocal.mitre.org 1112619059 5301 128.29.24.19 (4 Apr 2005 12:50:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@mitre.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:50:59 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!l.newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newstransit.mitre.org!news.mitre.org!jcmorris Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202249 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca writes: >But even more recently, I learned something even more startling. The >IBM System/360 Model 40 definitely was microprogrammed; a FE manual on >Al Kossow's site shows the microcode format for it. It's also worth noting that the microcode store on the /40 was the same technology (TROS) that was used in the 2314. While I was able to read the /40 microcode (with occasional glances at a cheat sheet) I don't recall ever seeing any documentation for the code in the 2314. Does anyone know if it used the same microcode engine? Joe Morris ###### From: stegeman.h@12move.nl Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 4 Apr 2005 07:06:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <1112623601.770836.225940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.146.0.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112623607 10308 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2005 14:06:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:06:47 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=134.146.0.12; posting-account=qGdJxAwAAACbY6itndzFrB3bCB1SyXUr Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202255 Joe Morris wrote: > It's also worth noting that the microcode store on the /40 was the > same technology (TROS) that was used in the 2314. While I was able > to read the /40 microcode (with occasional glances at a cheat sheet) > I don't recall ever seeing any documentation for the code in the > 2314. >Does anyone know if it used the same microcode engine? Got it. It is different and specially designed for the disk controller function. Regards Henk > > Joe Morris ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: sarr@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: sarr@news.itd.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) Originator: sarr@news.itd.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) Lines: 14 Message-ID: <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:42:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.211.2.214 X-Trace: news.itd.umich.edu 1112625722 141.211.2.214 (Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:42:02 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:42:02 EDT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202257 In article , Eric Smith wrote: > >I suspect that the 360/85 microarchitecture became the basis for the >370/165, but I haven't read the CE manuals so I couldn't say with any >high degree of certainty. My memory on this subject is particularly unreliable, but I believe the 165 had virtual memory hardware but the 85 did not. -- -------- Sarr Blumson sarr.blumson@alum.dartmouth.org http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sarr/ ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:49:07 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:49:03 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:h9nVDghtzK78KTOIcP5n+1h0LtY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 78 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-qOcGKEKLlq0Y2kw/ftA0Sj/t9JPDDqgXoHvY8jSb+yjhvL4aCnRRTeUDSZCJ4PJ3RNBYit8hRmH/wx0!+hYv8knCNxtZiPoDqKgpFzJ+xBjwHG/lfSgTK09bmRbXNi5BJPjxMFxVKoZlxyw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202259 sarr@news.itd.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) writes: > My memory on this subject is particularly unreliable, but I believe the > 165 had virtual memory hardware but the 85 did not. 165-ii was a field hardware retrofit of virtual memory hardware to 165s currently in the field ... and it was a significant effort. system/370 "red book" was the 370 architecture superset of the 370 principle of operations. it was done in cms script (document formating) with conditionals .... misc. references to cms done at the science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech and script and gml http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#sgml when conditionals were set for printing for the 370 principle of operations ... it left out lots of unannounced stuff ... as well as all kinds of engineering and other details. there were a number of features in the original 370 virtual memory architecture that were never announced. there was an escallation meeting in POK where the 165 engineers said that they could do a subset of the (virtual memory) a lot faster than doing everything in the architecture (which would take an additional six months). It was eventually decided to do the subset implementation that could be done six months faster by the 165 engineers. Among the things that got left out were new memory (segment, page) r/o protection and some of the selective invalidate commands (aka in addition to PTLB, there was ISTO, ISTE, IPTE). Bits and pieces of some of the unannounced 370 virtual memory support did leak out in later years. however, at the time, the change resulted in the other 370 products (that had already implemented the full 370 virtual memory support) having to go back and remove the extra stuff that the 165 wasn't going to do. the transition from cp67/cms to vm370/cms ... there was implementation that would use the new 370 segment protection feature with the cms shared segment support. with the dropping of the r/o 370 virtual memory protection support, cms had to revert to a kludge for maintaining integrity of shared segments across multiple different virtual address spaces. the original cms shared segment support was a single segment that was part of the cms kernel and had this really hacked kludge for protection. i had converted a bunch of virtual memory management stuff from cp67 to vm370 (that had never been released in cp67, including page mapped file system and a lot more extensive shared segment capability). The vm370 group picked up a small subset of these shared segment changes (and none of the page mapped file system) for vm370 release 3 ... and called it DCSS. misc. posts related to cms shared segments, page mapped filesystem, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#mmap http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#adcon past posts mentioning 370 architecture red book http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#35 Why IBM use 31 bit addressing not 32 bit? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#39 serialization from the 370 architecture "red-book" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#43 IBM 1800 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#52 Spotting BAH Claims to Fame http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#69 history of CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#2 Handling variable page sizes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#76 reviving Multics http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#52 ECPS:VM DISPx instructions http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#45 text character based diagrams in technical documentation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#57 PLO instruction http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#1 Oldest running code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#6 If the x86 ISA could be redone http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#51 [OT] Lockheed puts F-16 manuals online http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#27 Vintage computers are better than modern crap ! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#45 August 23, 1957 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#50 IBM 3614 and 3624 ATM's http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#25 360POO http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#5 [Lit.] Buffer overruns -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: Alan Balmer Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:45:22 -0700 Organization: Balmer Consulting Lines: 18 Message-ID: <2kr251lte3tf5tj8ovvn6gejdl3dfcgvbb@4ax.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: albalmer@spamcop.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Ogj7cVzwNhGJyEtH8HVaawZKBiXc9N1q5mdfYo5w9cpQ+ZVcds Cancel-Lock: sha1:AYUZUkE+1dYzT1pA5TR4tTvz5Eo= X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 X-NFilter: 1.2.0 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202265 On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:40:26 GMT, Brian Inglis wrote: >>Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation >>between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very >>odd beast. > >Presumably the 360/44 was either a process or scientific machine? Yes. When I was at Bausch & Lomb (mid to late 60's), they were doing breakthrough work in optical design using the 360/44. It's my understanding that things like the Cinemascope lens and zoom lenses which stayed in focus were designed on it. -- Al Balmer Balmer Consulting removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:39:57 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:39:55 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Myq3p+ORvh8jFExQEYbMCReGR3k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 113 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-U68SGvN/mfSMp0q671yLhQqTSvfnNTwTv/kWs+wQIgahG3AAVGbDAc92Jp0m/nb27CzWifY7AJtQDZy!a22bnj33HdextgF8NsHR+/LFbz3oVPQ3ZsmxOW0Ps5D6s/2TSke+ZwaeTkNTqIQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202273 Anne & Lynn Wheeler writes: > 165-ii was a field hardware retrofit of virtual memory hardware to > 165s currently in the field ... and it was a significant effort. aka initial 370 announce and ship didn't have virtual memory support ... virtual memory was announced later and there had to be hardware retrofit for 155s and 165s the only 360 with virtual memory support was the 360/67 (except for the specially modified cambridge 360/40) which had both 24-bit and 32-bit virtual memory address options. when 370 virtual memory was announced it only had 24-bit addressing. it wasn't until 370-xa on the 3081 that you saw more than 24-bit (except it was 31-bit, not 32-bit that had been available on the 360/67). cambirdge had wanted to add special virtual memory hardware to 360/50 ... but there weren't any spare 50s (the spare 50s were all going to the faa air traffic control system effort) and so had to settle on modifying a 360/40. the built cp/40 for this machine and later when 360/67 became available, morphed into cp/67. some of this is also in melinda's history http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/ random past posts mentioning cp/40: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#0 360/67, was Re: IBM's Project F/S ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#23 MTS & LLMPS? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#25 MTS & LLMPS? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#37 SIE instruction (S/390) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#46 Rethinking Virtual Memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#53 How Do the Old Mainframes http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#54 How Do the Old Mainframes http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#22 Pre S/360 IBM Operating Systems? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#28 Drive letters http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#33 ... cics ... from posting from another list http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#45 Why can't more CPUs virtualize themselves? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#139 OS/360 (and descendents) VM system? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#142 OS/360 (and descendents) VM system? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#174 S/360 history http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#237 I can't believe this newsgroup still exists http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#42 Domainatrix - the final word http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#79 Unisys vs IBM mainframe comparisons http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#16 First OS with 'User' concept? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#30 OT? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#63 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#66 360 Architecture, Multics, ... was (Re: X86 ultimate CISC? No.) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#78 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#52 Correct usage of "Image" ??? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#81 Ux's good points. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#82 Ux's good points. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#29 z900 and Virtual Machine Theory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#9 VM: checking some myths. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#10 VM: checking some myths. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#46 Whom Do Programmers Admire Now??? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#34 IBM OS Timeline? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#39 IBM OS Timeline? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#47 TSS/360 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#49 TSS/360 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#6 Microcode? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#44 PDP-10 Archive migration plan http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#64 ... the need for a Museum of Computer Software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#8 TOPS-10 logins (Was Re: HP-2000F - want to know more about it) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#39 VAX, M68K complex instructions (was Re: Did Intel Bite Off More Than It Can Chew?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#47 Multics_Security http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#30 Computers in Science Fiction http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#36 Blade architectures http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#13 Secure Device Drivers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#59 history of CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#62 history of CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#70 history of CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#64 vm marketing (cross post) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#22 Computer Architectures http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#56 10 choices that were critical to the Net's success http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#65 The problem with installable operating systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#3 The problem with installable operating systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#28 why does wait state exist? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#0 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#44 filesystem structure, was tape format (long post) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#2 History of project maintenance tools -- what and when? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#31 Lisp Machines http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#33 price ov IBM virtual address box?? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#5 What is timesharing, anyway? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#9 What is timesharing, anyway? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#24 Microkernels are not "all or nothing". Re: Multics Concepts For http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#48 Who said DAT? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#4 IBM Manuals from the 1940's and 1950's http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#16 OSI not quite dead yet http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#31 SR 15,15 was: IEFBR14 Problems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#34 SR 15,15 was: IEFBR14 Problems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#36 S/360 undocumented instructions? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#32 who invented the "popup" ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#47 Funny Micro$oft patent http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#0 Is DOS unix? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#11 40yrs, science center, feb. 1964 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#25 More complex operations now a better choice? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#17 IBM 7094 Emulator - An historic moment? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#63 before execution does it require whole program 2 b loaded in http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#4 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#48 Hercules http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#29 BLKSIZE question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004h.html#34 Which Monitor Would You Pick?????? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#45 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#7 Whatever happened to IBM's VM PC software? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#3 Shipwrecks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#4 RISCs too close to hardware? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#25 Shipwrecks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005c.html#56 intel's Vanderpool and virtualization in general -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 04 Apr 2005 12:35:07 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112643308 64.62.206.2 (4 Apr 2005 12:35:08 -0700) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!easynet-monga!easynet.net!news.nyc.plig.net!news.litech.org!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!news.spies.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202289 I wrote: > I suspect that the 360/85 microarchitecture became the basis for the > 370/165, but I haven't read the CE manuals so I couldn't say with any > high degree of certainty. Sarr J. Blumson wrote: > My memory on this subject is particularly unreliable, but I believe the > 165 had virtual memory hardware but the 85 did not. The 165 did not have dynamic address translation, thus no virtual memory. The 168 was essentially a 165 with DAT. The 165 could be upgraded (at huge expense) to add the DAT, becoming a 165-3. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:30:15 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:30:12 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yyOCcRV324ddwPaSYvoa8PK0QoM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-KneYLvlBYyabf3kvdvm8rsk7zcVawX9g26Vd/jV/H1a19iBRe+gyV7YQTuAhJSIZIz1WpcRdHpqWZW7!+RNR6jY8GtnfMLXMnGtO2auEZzpeJ6fbhbIKPAZySqTNuoU6r5x4EZ7ueAu9Ngc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed7!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202292 Eric Smith writes: > The 165 did not have dynamic address translation, thus no virtual memory. > The 168 was essentially a 165 with DAT. The 165 could be upgraded (at > huge expense) to add the DAT, becoming a 165-3. the 155 and 165 had cache and 2mic(?) memory ... and you could get a field retro-fit of virtual memory hardware. the 158 & 168 had cache and something like 500ns (480?) memory ... so cache misses did a lot better. they also came with virtual memory support as standard. i worked with one of the 165 engineers on vamps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#bounce i remember him saying that the 165 avg. something like 2.1 machine cycles per 370 instruction and they improved that for 168 to an avg. of 1.6 machine cycles per 370 instruction. the 168-1 to 168-3 transition involved doubling the cache size from 32k to 64k. it turned at that they were using the 2k bit to index the extra cache lines (trying to some of the indexing bits that were the same whether it was a virtual or real address). this caused a performance degradation running any of the 2k-page operating systems (vs1, dos/vs) under vm on 168-3. in virtual 2k page mode the 168-3 ran with half the cache (essentially reverted to 168-1). The problem with running under VM would be that every time you entered the vm kernel, it would switch to 4k page mode ... which flushed and reset the complete cache ... and then switching back to 2k page mode with shadow page tables again flushed and reset the complete cache. as a result, running a 168-3 in these environments was actually much worse than running with a 168-1 ... since the cache flush and reset (with constant switch between 2k & 4k page modes) was causing a lot of additional overing 158 was microcoded machine with integrated channels ... aka the native engine was shared between executing the microcode for channel operation and the microcode for 370 processor operation. for the 303x follow-on they introduced a "channel director". the channel director was basically a 158 native engine running only the 158 integrated channel microcode (and no 370 microcode). A 3031 was a 158 native engine running only the 370 microcode (and no integrated channel microcode) and reconfigured to work in conjunction with a channel director (in effect two processor shared memory .... but the engines were running completely different m'code). The 3032 was a 168 reconfigured to work with channel director. A 3033 started out effectively being the 168 wiring diagram remapped to faster technology (and configured to work with channel directors). -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: "Lee Courtney" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:30:47 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <1155f9oa25ik80b@corp.supernews.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 77 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202363 At HP we went though what I believe was a similar exercise with the HP 3000 Series 64. When VISION was delayed in lieu of SPECTRUM, the 3000 product line was in a bad place with no imminent performance upgrade in the pipeline. As a stop-gap measure we shipped disc-caching as the Series 68 and Series 70. When the customer upgraded they got a new face-plate (64-68) and a microcode tape. I believe the 70 included additional memory (important for disc caching). But, many customers were under-whelmed with the amount of change they saw for the dollars they paid. However, a great product with lots of customer benefit that really saved HP's bacon at the time. Sounds like the 168 was a field upgrade from the 165. Was the original 165 designed to accommodate virtual memory, or was VM an after-thought? On a related note I am assuming that the 158 did not share any lineage with the 155? That the 155 was more a backwards leaning 360'ish machine than forward leaning 370 architecture machine. The timing of the 155/165 relative to the 158/168 announcements might lead one to believe there was some linkage between the systems. Thanks! Lee Courtney "Anne & Lynn Wheeler" wrote in message news:m3vf729tez.fsf@lhwlinux.garlic.com... > Eric Smith writes: >> The 165 did not have dynamic address translation, thus no virtual memory. >> The 168 was essentially a 165 with DAT. The 165 could be upgraded (at >> huge expense) to add the DAT, becoming a 165-3. > > the 155 and 165 had cache and 2mic(?) memory ... and you could get a > field retro-fit of virtual memory hardware. > > the 158 & 168 had cache and something like 500ns (480?) memory ... so > cache misses did a lot better. they also came with virtual memory > support as standard. i worked with one of the 165 engineers on vamps > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#bounce > > i remember him saying that the 165 avg. something like 2.1 machine > cycles per 370 instruction and they improved that for 168 to an > avg. of 1.6 machine cycles per 370 instruction. > > the 168-1 to 168-3 transition involved doubling the cache size from > 32k to 64k. it turned at that they were using the 2k bit to index the > extra cache lines (trying to some of the indexing bits that were the > same whether it was a virtual or real address). this caused a > performance degradation running any of the 2k-page operating systems > (vs1, dos/vs) under vm on 168-3. in virtual 2k page mode the 168-3 ran > with half the cache (essentially reverted to 168-1). The problem with > running under VM would be that every time you entered the vm kernel, > it would switch to 4k page mode ... which flushed and reset the > complete cache ... and then switching back to 2k page mode with shadow > page tables again flushed and reset the complete cache. as a result, > running a 168-3 in these environments was actually much worse than > running with a 168-1 ... since the cache flush and reset (with > constant switch between 2k & 4k page modes) was causing a lot of > additional overing > > 158 was microcoded machine with integrated channels ... aka the native > engine was shared between executing the microcode for channel > operation and the microcode for 370 processor operation. > > for the 303x follow-on they introduced a "channel director". the > channel director was basically a 158 native engine running only the > 158 integrated channel microcode (and no 370 microcode). A 3031 was a > 158 native engine running only the 370 microcode (and no integrated > channel microcode) and reconfigured to work in conjunction with a > channel director (in effect two processor shared memory .... but the > engines were running completely different m'code). The 3032 was a 168 > reconfigured to work with channel director. A 3033 started out > effectively being the 168 wiring diagram remapped to faster technology > (and configured to work with channel directors). > > -- > Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### Message-ID: <4252C111.66DC359D@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research http://cbfalconer.home.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> <1155f9oa25ik80b@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:59:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.138.53 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1112720385 12.76.138.53 (Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:59:45 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:59:45 GMT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202367 Lee Courtney wrote: > > At HP we went though what I believe was a similar exercise with the > HP 3000 Series 64. When VISION was delayed in lieu of SPECTRUM, the > 3000 product line was in a bad place with no imminent performance > upgrade in the pipeline. As a stop-gap measure we shipped > disc-caching as the Series 68 and Series 70. When the customer > upgraded they got a new face-plate (64-68) and a microcode tape. I > believe the 70 included additional memory (important for disc > caching). But, many customers were under-whelmed with the amount of > change they saw for the dollars they paid. However, a great product > with lots of customer benefit that really saved HP's bacon at the > time. The most ridiculous HP3000 upgrade was the first, when they went from 128 kB to 512 kB in four banks. Why they didn't have the sense to arrange for more banks in that architecture beat me then, and still beats me today. We had one of the first machines at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and were performance limited for about 10 years. -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:37:50 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> <1155f9oa25ik80b@corp.supernews.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:37:46 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QGQ9i0jEE/3dcm/XDLhzwc1G/QQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 78 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-3YjcSMUMXtM1sKo3CHUM9u7rtdBRLmrSqZm/KRtX4TtiSL9xM07rEmVSru51bIIMyGrb/0rh0sAPgHe!LMT51pc4lhNao7RkeXyT/PLHtQM/GFc9D+HZFpEtwNiVJXYTe0+c+cUKqpdC3FQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202370 "Lee Courtney" writes: > At HP we went though what I believe was a similar exercise with the > HP 3000 Series 64. When VISION was delayed in lieu of SPECTRUM, the > 3000 product line was in a bad place with no imminent performance > upgrade in the pipeline. As a stop-gap measure we shipped > disc-caching as the Series 68 and Series 70. When the customer > upgraded they got a new face-plate (64-68) and a microcode tape. I > believe the 70 included additional memory (important for disc > caching). But, many customers were under-whelmed with the amount of > change they saw for the dollars they paid. However, a great product > with lots of customer benefit that really saved HP's bacon at the > time. > > Sounds like the 168 was a field upgrade from the 165. Was the > original 165 designed to accommodate virtual memory, or was VM an > after-thought? > > On a related note I am assuming that the 158 did not share any > lineage with the 155? That the 155 was more a backwards leaning > 360'ish machine than forward leaning 370 architecture machine. The > timing of the 155/165 relative to the 158/168 announcements might > lead one to believe there was some linkage between the systems. > > Thanks! > > Lee Courtney 158/168 were new technology ... compared to 155/165 ... especially the faster real memory technology. however, i believe the architecture of the native engines were the same and so the same microcode could work. 155/165 weren't designed for virtual memory and required extensive hardware retrofit to install it in existing boxes. in the early 70s ... most of my POK visits involved 370 architecture meetings ... and didn't run into many cpu engineers ... other than who might show up in such meetings. in the mid/late 70s ... i got involved with the cpu engineers working on the 3033 ... i was even invited to their weekly after work events, if i happened to be in town (honorary cpu engineer?). part of the issue was that 370 (non-virtual memory) was just an interim/stop-gap. the real followon was going to be FS (future system). there was huge resources poured into FS ... and it was finally canceled w/o being announced (and few were even aware of it). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys as noted in previous posts on FS ... i didn't make myself very popular with the FS crowd ... somewhat panning their effort (there was this long-playing cult film down in central sq ... and I made the analogy to FS of the inmates being in charge of the asylum). as in other references to FS, FS was supposedly spawned by the emergence of the 360 control clone market ... example: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#16 FS - IBM Future System ... aka in above refernece it mentions that 2500 were initially assigned to the project. I worked on a project as an undergraduate that created a clone telecommunication controller (reverse engineer the ibm channel, adapt a interdata/3, etc) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm there later was a write up blaiming the four of us for spawning the controller clone business. FS may have then contributed to creating 370 clone mainframe market. Amdahl may have left to form his own 370 company in disagreement over the FS direction/strategy (as opposed to bigger, faster 370). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#29 Using the Cache to Change the Width of Memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#35 Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:47:09 -0500 From: Wally B Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:47:09 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Cache-Post-Path: localhost!unknown@67.136.137.159 X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 58 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.224.20.40 X-Trace: sv3-AdpCnpLRXaiy5CKF7q/jTyU3iOZgg3OIhDh4+ZTQ81YwOQTDY/DN9J260QUagYIhzTK33mkqK7xH2MN!t5W2Sjix9cfoE6Zm/Qj3e4DUaM2kdomBPKEqG8S/bldsYl42CFiAXznxA/AsgCy0mW+4sFLQBk+y!sNmKRRvc X-Complaints-To: abuse@virtisp.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@virtisp.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.virtisp.net!news.virtisp.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202416 On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:50:59 +0000 (UTC), Joe Morris >I don't recall ever seeing any documentation for the code in the >2314. Does anyone know if it used the same microcode engine? The 2314 had almost an identical microword as the 2841, which was the first 360 DASD controller and supported the 2311, 2302, and the 2321 (I think that was the number) strip file. The 2841 started off using CCROS (Card Capacitor ROS), and changed to TROS in mid project because CCROS was so unreliable. The original 2841 had an 8 bit ALU that was lifted from the MOD 30 design. That ALU was an interesting design in that it was fully checked against any single circuit failure, but with a design where the circuitry doing the checking actually improved the speed of the ALU as well. Later versious of the 2841 had a cost reduced ALU which wasn't based on the MOD 30's self checking design (the redesign saved almost a whole board of logic, as I recall) I don't have documentation on the 2841 microword, but I suspect that I can figure out most of it. The ALU had two inputs (A and B), and there were about 20 registers, as I recall. So, I think there was: 5 bits to select the first ALU input register (for each cycle) 4 bits to select the second ALU input (not all regs useable on B) 5 bits to select the ALU output target 3 bits to select the ALU operation 6 bits for the next microword address bits [7-2] 4 bits to select the value of or one of 14 test objects for setting bit[1] of the next microword address 4 bits to select the value of or one of 14 test objects for setting bit[0] of the next microword address 8 bits for the constant field, which could be gated to input B. This was a dual use field, and was also used to select bits [12-8] of the next microword, when necessary. 4 bits which decoded to setting or resetting one of 8 status bits That adds up to a 43 bit microword, which seems about right. I think that TROS supported about a half dozen more bits that we used in the 2841 microword. Since the two low order bits of the next address could derived from various things that the microcode needed to test, it was possible for every instruction to be branching on two different things, and hence have four possible successor microwords. As I recall, about half of the instructions of the microcode load were in fact branching on two different test objects, about a 30% were only branching on one thing, and 20% had only a single successor microinstruction. (I wrote about 80% of the microcode for the 2841, and also wrote something called the 2x8 inline diagnostics for the 2844, which was a version of the 2314 with 2x8 switching of 8 drives between two control units.) Wally Bass ###### Reply-To: "Dan Koren" From: "Dan Koren" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Message-ID: <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> X-Original-Trace: 5 Apr 2005 20:27:40 -0700, adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Authenticated-User: meer Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:13:46 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.157.152.10 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1112758061 209.157.152.10 (Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:27:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:27:41 GMT Organization: NTT/VERIO Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!5cd0c76e!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202418 "Eric Smith" wrote in message news:qh8y3zo7ek.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > John Savard wrote: >> I have learned some interesting >> and unexpected facts about the use of microcode with the IBM >> System/360. > > Hardwired: 360/44 360/75 360/91 360/95 360/195 370/195 > The 370/195 was a masterpiece of processor architecture that has yet to be matched, let alone surpassed.... ;-) dk PS. ... showing my age I suppose. ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 5 Apr 2005 21:21:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 30 Message-ID: <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.75 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112761276 9077 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2005 04:21:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 04:21:16 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.75; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202427 Dan Koren wrote: > The 370/195 was a masterpiece of processor architecture > that has yet to be matched, let alone surpassed.... ;-) Al Kossow's site has the schematics for the Model 30. Interestingly enough, Microprogramming Principles and Practices, by Samir S. Husson, which describes the microcode of the Model 40 and 50 in detail, also gives a brief account of the microcode formats for models 20, 25, and 85, does not say much about the Model 30. But Computer Structures: Readings and Examples gives a description of the Model 30 microprogram format. U. S. Patent 3,400,371 describes one of the models of the IBM System/360; U. S. Patent 3,315,235 presumably describes a different one. I shall have to see if I can, from these other references, determine which models they refer to. It is too bad that he doesn't have the schematics of the Model 195; I had always thought they might make a helpful starting point for someone designing a Pentium-class microprocessor. I would definitely agree that the Pentium doesn't surpass the 195 in elegance, but there are other machines that have reaped praise between then and now, such as the Cray-1. John Savard ###### Reply-To: "Dan Koren" From: "Dan Koren" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Lines: 53 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Message-ID: <425378ec@news.meer.net> X-Original-Trace: 5 Apr 2005 22:51:40 -0700, adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Authenticated-User: meer Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:50:44 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.157.152.10 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1112766701 209.157.152.10 (Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:51:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:51:41 GMT Organization: NTT/VERIO Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!5cd0c76e!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202429 wrote in message news:1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Dan Koren wrote: > >> The 370/195 was a masterpiece of processor architecture >> that has yet to be matched, let alone surpassed.... ;-) > > Al Kossow's site has the schematics for the Model 30. I was only referring to the 370/195. I have never worked on a /30. In fact, the smallest 360/370 machine I touched was a 360/67. > Interestingly enough, Microprogramming Principles and Practices, by > Samir S. Husson, which describes the microcode of the Model 40 and 50 > in detail, also gives a brief account of the microcode formats for > models 20, 25, and 85, does not say much about the Model 30. > > But Computer Structures: Readings and Examples gives a description of > the Model 30 microprogram format. The 370/195 was hardwired. Microprogramming is cheating! ;-) > U. S. Patent 3,400,371 describes one of the models of the IBM > System/360; U. S. Patent 3,315,235 presumably describes a different > one. I shall have to see if I can, from these other references, > determine which models they refer to. > > It is too bad that he doesn't have the schematics of the Model 195; I > had always thought they might make a helpful starting point for someone > designing a Pentium-class microprocessor. > > I would definitely agree that the Pentium doesn't surpass the 195 in > elegance, but there are other machines that have reaped praise between > then and now, such as the Cray-1. Count the 370/195 pipeline stages and you will get an interesting number... ;-) The Cray machines excel(led) at vector processing, but did not have as aggressive pipelines as the 370/195. In fact, I'm not sure anything else even came close.... dk ###### From: "Rupert Pigott" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 04:55:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <1112788502.943666.227790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <425378ec@news.meer.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.137.43.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112788507 21936 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2005 11:55:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:55:07 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <425378ec@news.meer.net> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.137.43.11; posting-account=I5V6xQ0AAAAMWBGyKneUw5LDpQG_8qVX Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202455 Dan Koren wrote: [SNIP] > The Cray machines excel(led) at vector processing, but > did not have as aggressive pipelines as the 370/195. In > fact, I'm not sure anything else even came close.... What I've learnt about the 370/195 in this NG has whetted my appetite somewhat, it does sound impressive. I'd quite happily queue to see those schematics myself. The same goes for IBM's ACS, Smotherman's site has whetted my appetite. :) The schematics of Manchester University's MU5 would make for some interesting reading too. It was a rather odd (and very large) asynchronous machine that had a number of unusual architectural features. AFAICT it could be classified as superpipelined and superscalar. Cheers, Rupert ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:59:53 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mschaef_ng@mschaef.com Organization: mschaef.com X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Originator: mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:59:53 -0500 Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.198.128.89 X-Trace: sv3-1gWCAgloEmYiScSp53QIn6GcPvFNuE92/Tz979EObRY/d47tLTRqKCcM9GpW+eIeedC6ktYHHrAFf9U!iIA5F9uZvTn/Vq68FTFuEE5Bnl0s802migLAU1M1Vu0CcMkejmLEuJQmOZfzUWs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@io.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@io.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!feeder2.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!feed7.newsreader.com!feed5.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.io.com!news.io.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202474 In article <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, wrote: ... >It is too bad that he doesn't have the schematics of the Model 195; I >had always thought they might make a helpful starting point for someone >designing a Pentium-class microprocessor. > >I would definitely agree that the Pentium doesn't surpass the 195 in >elegance, Can anybody talk a little more about what made the 195 special? thanks, Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:27:34 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:27:32 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mBhWebSYkf1kIHLjDyCw0F7A7TI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 159 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-GhuGmU4BXrsOIn3HuJxWHy5wSaWtuSbtXokBgrrJnXmaXNLFUtbDF6VL0TBTAtZTIYyrPZhfZCMiT/1!4+aC03NJCQqu6qHqCVkR5+kL/WRENMHZhwCfWWbw0su2yu5nnCDVTPrf75h5qnQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202481 mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) writes: > Can anybody talk a little more about what made the 195 special? an unrelated 195 story ... the 195 had 64 instructions in the pipeline and no branch prediction ... a branch (that wasn't to an instruction already in the pipeline ... aka loop) would cause the pipeline to draine. unless it was very specialized looping codes ... normal instruction stream ran the 195 at about half peak ... because of the frequence of branches. i got somewhat involved when the 195 product engineers were looking at adding two processor 195 support ... actually the original hyperthreading (that intel processors have recently gone thru a phase); basically a second set of registers and psw and the pipeline would have red/black flag ... indicating which instruction stream stuff was associated with. it looked like SMP to software ... but to the hardware it was hyperthreading two instruction streams (dual i-stream). the idea was that if avg. software only kept the pipeline half full because of branches ... that two instruction streams had a chance of keeping the pipeline full ... and achieving peak instruction processing rates (these machines had no caches ... and so were much more sensitive to memory latencies). however, it was never announced and shipped. sjr/bld28 still had a 195 in the late 70s ... running heavy batch workload. palo alto science center had an application that they submitted ... but because of the processing queue ... it only got run about once every three months. pasc finally did some work on the application for checkpointing and running under cms batch in the background on their 370/145 vm/cms system. it would soak up spare cycles on the machine offshift and weekends. the elapsed time was slightly better than the 3month turnaround at the sjr 195 (because of the long work queue). gpd was also running an application on the 195 that was getting excessive long turn arounds ... air bearing simulation ... for design of the new disk floating heads. we had done this work over in the disk enginnering lab (bldg 14) and product test lab (bldg 15) so that they could run under operating system environment. prior to that, they were running dedicated stand-alone ... they had tried MVS at one time and were getting about 15minutes MTBF when running a single test cell. bullet proofing the operating system I/O subsytem allowed them to operate half-dozen or so test cells concurrently w/o failing. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk in any case, the disk product test lab in bldg. 15 tended to get something like the 3rd machine model ... after the first two that cpu engineers were testing with. because of the operating system work for the disk guys ... i would have access to these new machines. when endicott was building the 4341 ... the endicott performance people asked me to do benchmarks on the bldg. 15 4341 (because i had better access to a 4341 than they did in endicott). anyway, bldg. 15 also got an early 3033. 3033 ran about half the speed of 195 peak ... but about the same as the 195 for most normal workloads. while the disk regression tests in bldg. 15 were i/o intensive ... they bairly blimped the cpu meter. so one of the things we thought would be useful was get the air bearing simulation application up and running on the bldg. 15 3033 ... where it could soak up almost the complete cpu with little competition ... much better than a couple turn-arounds a month on 195 across the street in sjr/28. minor past posts mentioning the air bearing simulation application: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#39 195 was: Computer Typesetting Was: Movies with source code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#30 Weird http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#63 Help me find pics of a UNIVAC please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#74 They Got Mail: Not-So-Fond Farewells http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#51 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#52 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#69 Multics Concepts For the Contemporary Computing World http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#20 360 Microde Floating Point Fix http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#45 hung/zombie users ... long boring, wandering story http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#15 harddisk in space http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#21 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#15 360 longevity, was RISCs too close to hardware? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#25 CKD Disks? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#8 [Lit.] Buffer overruns some past posts mentioning 195 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#38 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#21 Competitors to SABRE? Big Iron http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#13 Airspeed Semantics, was: not quite an sr-71, was: Re: jet in IBM ad? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#21 OT? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#15 360/370 instruction cycle time http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#18 360/370 instruction cycle time http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#38 Why SMP at all anymore? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#27 Massive windows waisting time (was Re: StarOffice for free) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#49 Other oddball IBM System 360's ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#76 Other oddball IBM System 360's ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#63 Are the L1 and L2 caches flushed on a page fault ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#27 Pentium 4 SMT "Hyperthreading" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#38 Computer Typesetting Was: Movies with source code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#39 195 was: Computer Typesetting Was: Movies with source code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#41 195 was: Computer Typesetting Was: Movies with source code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#63 Hyper-Threading Technology - Intel information. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#80 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#86 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#70 Pipelining in the past http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#76 Pipelining in the past http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#19 PowerPC Mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#23 System/360 shortcuts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#50 Microcode? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#52 Microcode? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#19 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#30 Weird http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#58 IBM S/370-168, 195, and 3033 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#59 IBM S/370-168, 195, and 3033 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#63 Help me find pics of a UNIVAC please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#3 PLX http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#44 Help me find pics of a UNIVAC please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#58 AMP vs SMP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#51 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#52 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#37 "average" DASD Blocksize http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003f.html#33 PDP10 and RISC http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#20 price ov IBM virtual address box?? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003h.html#47 Segments, capabilities, buffer overrun attacks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#15 vax6k.openecs.org rebirth http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#41 Of what use 64-bit "General Purpose" registers? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#69 Multics Concepts For the Contemporary Computing World http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003l.html#48 IBM Manuals from the 1940's and 1950's http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#60 S/360 undocumented instructions? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#45 hung/zombie users ... long boring, wandering story http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#3 Hyperthreading vs. SMP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#15 harddisk in space http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#6 If the x86 ISA could be redone http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#13 Yakaota http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#29 separate MMU chips http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#1 A POX on you, Dennis Ritchie!!! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#43 security taxonomy and CVE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#58 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#21 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#22 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#24 40th anniversary of IBM System/360 on 7 Apr 2004 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#27 dual processors: not just for breakfast anymore? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#2 IBM 3090 : Was (and fek that) : Re: new computer kits http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#59 Lock-free algorithms http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#18 Integer types for 128-bit addressing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#12 [Lit.] Buffer overruns http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005c.html#2 [Lit.] Buffer overruns http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#5 [Lit.] Buffer overruns http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#8 [Lit.] Buffer overruns http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#19 The Soul of Barb's New Machine (was Re: creat) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#38 IBM 370/195 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#39 IBM 370/195 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#3 What is an IBM 137/148 ??? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#24 old manuals http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#73 The Chronology http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#97 Power4 = 2 cpu's on die? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#209 Core (word usage) was anti-equipment etc -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 53 Message-ID: <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.104 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112803406 28283 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2005 16:03:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:03:26 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.104; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202486 Eric Smith wrote: > Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation > between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very > odd beast. I have found one piece of evidence indicating _some_ relation. A Field Engineering manual on Al Kossow's site notes the meaning of prefix characters for diagnostic programs. The table runs: 0 - Special system (non-System/360) 1 - Not used 2 - Used by Model 20 3 - Used by Model 30 4 - Used by Models 40/44 5 - Used by Model 50 6 - Used by Models 65/67 7 - Used by Model 75 8 - Used by Model 85 9 - Used by Models 91/95 A - On line test B - Not used C - Used by Model 25 D - Special system (FAA 9020) E - Used by some systems but not by all F - Applicable to all systems page 3-1 of SY22-2851-1. Now, it is odd that the Model 40 and 44 would both have the same Diagnose instruction given that the Model 44 was not capable of executing Model 40 microcode. At least, I assume that to be the case, and that even the "Dublin Emulator" was written in regular 360/44 machine code. To me, it would not seem unnatural for the 360/44 to have had the same ALU as the 360/40, just controlled by hardwired control instead of microcode; however, the problem with that approach, of course, is that the 360/44 couldn't have achieved its observed performance advantage over the 360/40 for scientific problems in that fashion. Given that the commercial instruction set was not available for it, of course, it used different software than all the other models. (But given *that*, it was rather disingenuous for IBM to refer to the commercial instruction set as an "option" on the other models!) John Savard ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 09:42:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 59 Message-ID: <1112805730.777388.249740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.104 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112805735 12339 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2005 16:42:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:42:15 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.104; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202489 MSCHAEF.COM wrote: > Can anybody talk a little more about what made the 195 special? I know what made it special to an extent, but not what made it _as_ special as the previous poster had said. IBM built the Model 91 computer as its "top-of-the-line" machine. It had an elegant new pipelined arithmetic unit using some algorithms not entirely surpassed today, and it used hardwired control for maximum speed. It also built the Model 85 computer which was located between its previous top-of-the-line machine, the Model 75, and the Model 91. But the Model 85 turned out to be very nearly as fast as the Model 91. IBM had serious problems with its last attempt at a pipelined machine, the STRETCH, and this might well have killed pipelines at IBM. But instead, IBM persevered, perhaps with Gene Amdahl exercising his persuasive skills to the limit... and perhaps because the 91 was clearly not a total flop; pipelines were helping this time, even if less so than expected. The Model 91 had a top memory size of 4 megabytes. IBM had made, for NASA, two Model 95 computers which had a thin-film main memory of 1 megabyte; the same four megabytes of core served as bulk core. They were IBM's only well-known machines with thin-film memory (there may have been a few military systems as well). In any event, the Model 195 was basically a Model 91 with a 32K cache made from that up-and-coming technology, semiconductor RAM. If the 85 had performed less well, perhaps the Model 95 would have been made in larger quantities, since IBM *had* finally figured out how to get thin film memory to work - but since a small cache was seen to have nearly all the benefits of a faster main memory, although semiconductor RAM was much more expensive than thin-film per bit, having a much smaller cache that was twice as fast was the way to go; about the same price, almost twice the performance. Plus the image benefits of using the "latest technology" instead of something about to become old hat. Pity that thin film was too expensive for IBM to offer four megabytes of *that* as an option for the 360/195. Or, for that matter, sixteen. How much more can it possibly cost to bring a few more address lines out of the box? But then that applies to today's 64-bit microprocessors too. Why just 40 or 48 bit addresses? Bring the signals out to pins, and let implementors decide if they want to make use of them. In any event, this means that a set of schematics for the Model 91 are almost as good, as far as *I* know. There may be other enhancements to the 195 besides the cache that gave it its unique status. Of course, the fact that there was a 370/195 as well is another plus for that design. John Savard ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 10:07:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 17 Message-ID: <1112807228.555735.233670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112807233 14307 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2005 17:07:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:07:13 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.79; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp.abs.net!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202492 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > U. S. Patent 3,400,371 describes one of the models of the IBM > System/360; U. S. Patent 3,315,235 presumably describes a different > one. Looking at the diagrams of the internal registers and data flow of the machine in the two patents, apparently they describe the same machine. Pages 647 through 938 of Patent 3,400,371 apparently contain a complete listing of the microcode of the model described therein; but the microcode seems to have a 64-bit word, which doesn't match any of the actual 360 models. Doubtless closer study will explain this. John Savard ###### From: Nick Spalding Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:10:50 +0100 Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Nick Spalding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net RkGbEITyByFdZxLqizIXbQVEHc15zKCDAoinZqJrHp+YU+lWY= X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.0/32.698 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202494 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote, in <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > Eric Smith wrote: > > > Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no > relation > > between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very > > odd beast. > > I have found one piece of evidence indicating _some_ relation. > > A Field Engineering manual on Al Kossow's site notes the meaning of > prefix characters for diagnostic programs. > > The table runs: > > 0 - Special system (non-System/360) > 1 - Not used > 2 - Used by Model 20 > 3 - Used by Model 30 > 4 - Used by Models 40/44 > 5 - Used by Model 50 > 6 - Used by Models 65/67 > 7 - Used by Model 75 > 8 - Used by Model 85 > 9 - Used by Models 91/95 > A - On line test > B - Not used > C - Used by Model 25 > D - Special system (FAA 9020) > E - Used by some systems but not by all > F - Applicable to all systems > > page 3-1 of SY22-2851-1. > > Now, it is odd that the Model 40 and 44 would both have the same > Diagnose instruction given that the Model 44 was not capable of > executing Model 40 microcode. > > At least, I assume that to be the case, and that even the "Dublin > Emulator" was written in regular 360/44 machine code. > > To me, it would not seem unnatural for the 360/44 to have had the same > ALU as the 360/40, just controlled by hardwired control instead of > microcode; however, the problem with that approach, of course, is that > the 360/44 couldn't have achieved its observed performance advantage > over the 360/40 for scientific problems in that fashion. > > Given that the commercial instruction set was not available for it, of > course, it used different software than all the other models. (But > given *that*, it was rather disingenuous for IBM to refer to the > commercial instruction set as an "option" on the other models!) I wonder if the Dublin Emulator originated in Trinity College, Dublin which was just about to take delivery of a 44, and I was just about to be sent on a course on its maintenance when I resigned from IBM in July 1968. -- Nick Spalding ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:18:58 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:18:51 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:EW+A8RUPugCpziotX6SdKdHvPfQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-9Da34XMig8cPqzYTi1IQBLQgOANTH+AuvUuD10EXG1sM8z8t+of7Kkp/IbkGlkhtP0j22Sv552w3dGF!d3Rm3ZsJOgQjWcQxJaNipPaiLUMvJ8V0wGuCimqPT/MODTgxaYzMyZnvBcpnoY4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202505 ref: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#4 System/360, Hardwired vs. Microcoded 195 ran about 10mips peak ... but most normal codes (not specifically designed for looping in the pipeline) ran more like 5mips. related to previous post about 168 ... 168-3 was about a 3mips machine http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#1 System/360, Hardwired vs. Microcoded the 3033 started out being a mapping of the 168 design to faster chip technology resulting in about 20% higher mips. the chips in the 3033 were much higher density than those used in 168 (by about factor of ten times) ... but the design started out only using the same number of cicuits/chip as in the 168 original implementatation. part-way thru the design ... there was an effort to do partial redesign and leverage much higher circuit chip density ... which brought the 3033 up to about 4.5mips (50% more than 168). moving the air bearing simulation application from the sjr/28 195 to the 3033 in bldg.15 ran about the same speed ... but the 3033 was effectively cpu idle with no backlog (of cpu related work) ... significantly improving the design cycle for the new 3380 floating heads http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: Peter Flass User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:29:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.65.210.175 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1112819368 66.65.210.175 (Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:29:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:29:28 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news-out.nyroc.rr.com!twister.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202515 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > In my recent reading and web searches, I have learned some interesting > and unexpected facts about the use of microcode with the IBM > System/360. > I knew that of the original 360 models, only the Model 75 was > hardwired, the rest being microcoded. And, I believe I have heard that > the Model 195, and, by extension, the Model 91 and 95, were also > hardwired. > But I was surprised to learn, recently, that the Model 85 used > microcode. According to the article I read that mentioned this, IBM > would have used microcode for the 75, but was forced to use hardwired > logic because they had no sufficiently fast read-only memory available. > But even more recently, I learned something even more startling. The > IBM System/360 Model 40 definitely was microprogrammed; a FE manual on > Al Kossow's site shows the microcode format for it. > But, according to the Functional Characteristics book for the Model > 44, > it, too, had *hardwired* control logic. This let it run faster, but > meant that the decimal and character instructions were not available as > options for it. > John Savard > The /44 was intended as a process-control, laboratory, or "scientific" computer. IIRC, it had its own control program, the Model-44 PS, and I'm not sure it could run any of the standard OS's. Remember also that the decimal instruction set was an option on many 360's, as was the floating-point instruction set. I worked on many 360's without FP. ###### From: Eric Sosman Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:59:25 -0400 Organization: Sun Microsystems Corporation Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tardis.east.sun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news1brm.Central.Sun.COM 1112824766 22958 129.148.168.113 (6 Apr 2005 21:59:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1brm.central.sun.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:59:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20041214 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.compaq.com!newsfeed1.sea.pnap.net!newsfeed.pnap.net!brmea-news-1.sun.com!news1brm.central.sun.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202521 Peter Flass wrote: > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: > > The /44 was intended as a process-control, laboratory, or "scientific" > computer. IIRC, it had its own control program, the Model-44 PS, and > I'm not sure it could run any of the standard OS's. Remember also that > the decimal instruction set was an option on many 360's, as was the > floating-point instruction set. I worked on many 360's without FP. 44PS was the "native" operating system. There was some extra-cost hardware and software that provided a slow emulator for the missing instructions (plus hardware implementations of a few of them), and this let the machine run DOS or OS slowly. My college had a 44 that was time-shared between administration and academics: It ran 44PS from noon to midnight for students and faculty, and DOS from midnight to noon so the admin folks could run their COBOL and RPG (thanks to the emulator). The weirdest addition to the machine was an 18-- um, 1832? digital-to-analog converter, funded by the school's Conservatory of Music. We used adaptations of code developed by Max Matthews at Bell Labs to synthesize music (all right, "sound") by computing discrete samples at whatever rate was desired, and then there was this rather amazing program to stream the pre-computed values through the 18xx and drive as many as four output channels. We also played little games by hooking the outputs to oscilloscopes in various ways to generate graphics -- the images were less good than one could produce on the line printer, but were *way* cooler. -- Eric.Sosman@sun.com ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1112805730.777388.249740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 06 Apr 2005 16:12:54 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112829176 64.62.206.2 (6 Apr 2005 16:12:56 -0700) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.moat.net!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!news.spies.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202524 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca writes: > But the Model 85 turned out to be very nearly as fast as the Model 91. > IBM had serious problems with its last attempt at a pipelined machine, > the STRETCH, and this might well have killed pipelines at IBM. But > instead, IBM persevered, perhaps with Gene Amdahl exercising his > persuasive skills to the limit... and perhaps because the 91 was > clearly not a total flop; pipelines were helping this time, even if > less so than expected. That's not a different story than Stretch (aka IBM 7030 Data Processing System). On Stretch, the pipelines were helping, even if less so than expected. Eric ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 06 Apr 2005 16:21:31 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112829692 64.62.206.2 (6 Apr 2005 16:21:32 -0700) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ifi.unizh.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!news.glorb.com!news.kjsl.com!news.spies.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202526 I wrote: > Contrary to what some people have claimed, there is almost no relation > between the 360/40 and 360/44 hardware designs. The 360/44 is a very > odd beast. jsavard@ecn.ab.ca writes: > I have found one piece of evidence indicating _some_ relation. > A Field Engineering manual on Al Kossow's site notes the meaning of > prefix characters for diagnostic programs. [...] > 2 - Used by Model 20 > 3 - Used by Model 30 > 4 - Used by Models 40/44 > 5 - Used by Model 50 > 6 - Used by Models 65/67 > 7 - Used by Model 75 > 8 - Used by Model 85 > 9 - Used by Models 91/95 That doesn't demonstrate any similarity between the 40 and 44, only that the diagnostic part number prefixes were mnemonic in nature. I expect that after they introduced the model 25, its diagnostic prefix was probably "2", but it didn't have much in common with the model 20. > To me, it would not seem unnatural for the 360/44 to have had the same > ALU as the 360/40, I doubt very much that it did. By the time the 44 was designed, the 40 design was pretty long in the tooth. It seems far more likely that the 44 design would have used an ALU design similar to that of the 65. Eric ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 17:18:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <1112833123.491625.289060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.106 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112833128 13946 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2005 00:18:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:18:48 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.106; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202533 Eric Smith wrote: > I expect that > after they introduced the model 25, its diagnostic prefix was probably > "2", but it didn't have much in common with the model 20. No, it was C. > I doubt very much that it did. By the time the 44 was designed, the 40 > design was pretty long in the tooth. It seems far more likely that the > 44 design would have used an ALU design similar to that of the 65. You may well be right. Looking at an old book on computers, even the Model 75 just had a 64-bit adder, plus an 8-bit exponent adder and an 8-bit BCD adder. Just enough to implement the 360 instruction set with reasonable directness, like any number of traditional computers that preceded it. Nothing fancy, like we are used to in today's advanced microcomputers, or as appeared in such machines as the Control Data 6600 and the IBM 360/91. Incidentally, since pipelining is a form of parallelism - instructions are being executed side-by-side which cannot be logically dependent on each other - a machine with a design on the level of the 360/75 can have the same *worst-case* performance as an advanced design using far more transistors, even if the advanced design can have vastly higher performance on some problems. There have already been ECL microprocessors made, such as one by MIPS a while back; I think it was the R6000. Smaller and smaller CMOS gates, though, seem to imply that ECL is surpassed by CMOS in speed; BiCMOS is referred to as passe in some places. If there is no way to improve worst-case performance above what today's microprocessors provide, supercomputing in the "traditional" sense, as opposed by supercomputing by tying together commodity components, is indeed impossible. John Savard ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1112833123.491625.289060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 06 Apr 2005 17:58:04 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112835485 64.62.206.2 (6 Apr 2005 17:58:05 -0700) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202535 I wrote: > I expect that after they introduced the model 25, its diagnostic > prefix was probably "2", but it didn't have much in common with the > model 20. jsavard@ecn.ab.ca writes: > No, it was C. Oops, missed that in your table. Well, I still think it was mostly mnemonic and not particular an indication that there was commonality of design. At some point they probably decided that it wasn't reasonable to try to assign a unique letter to every forthcoming model. Eric ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 6 Apr 2005 20:08:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <1112843291.210286.231460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112803401.620817.321080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1112833123.491625.289060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.234.170.75 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112843298 12748 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2005 03:08:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 03:08:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.234.170.75; posting-account=iYorygwAAABh_sJqNDMvFdsA7EcFurwY Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202545 Eric Smith wrote: > Oops, missed that in your table. Well, I still think it was mostly > mnemonic and not particular an indication that there was commonality > of design. At some point they probably decided that it wasn't > reasonable to try to assign a unique letter to every forthcoming > model. You may well be right. As the owner of the Retrocomputing site, you would know more about these things than I would, although there are people out there who know more than both of us. I noted, in another thread, that the Model 75 was pretty conventional as a computer; according to one book describing it innards, it got by with a 64-bit adder, another 8-bit adder for exponents, and an 8-bit BCD adder for decimal instructions (apparently also usable in binary for string compares). But I find that the PDP-10, another conventional computer in that sense, had a performance much smaller than that of a 360/75, one comparable with the 360/50. Thus, the Model 75 obviously had something going for it. The same source shows the 360/44 slightly outperforming the 360/75; but it shows the 360/65 outperforming them both, so it may not be entirely accurate. (It attempts to normalize MIPS figures across performance measures over time so as to be able to compare everything from the Harvard Mark I to the NEC Earth Simulator; this is a difficult task, and so some inaccuracies come with the territory.) Clearly, the Model 44 was designed in response to competitive pressures. And giving it the option of running the commercial instruction set was avoided, to prevent it from eating into sales of the rest of IBM's product line. Just how they did that - well, as I noted, Pugh, Johnson, and Palmer apparently doesn't even *mention* the 360/44. John Savard ###### Reply-To: "Dan Koren" From: "Dan Koren" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Lines: 33 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Message-ID: <4254c2a9@news.meer.net> X-Original-Trace: 6 Apr 2005 22:18:33 -0700, adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Authenticated-User: meer Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 01:18:13 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.157.152.10 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1112851116 209.157.152.10 (Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:18:36 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 05:18:36 GMT Organization: NTT/VERIO Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news.moat.net!newspeer1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net!verio!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!5cd0c76e!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202553 "MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message news:ZcqdnSz8uMjEds7fRVn-vQ@io.com... > In article <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > wrote: > ... >>It is too bad that he doesn't have the schematics of the Model 195; I >>had always thought they might make a helpful starting point for someone >>designing a Pentium-class microprocessor. >> >>I would definitely agree that the Pentium doesn't surpass the 195 in >>elegance, > > Can anybody talk a little more about what made the 195 special? > The 370/195 was a heroic design, comparable to thenBoeing 747-SP ;-) Hardwired logic and a very deep pipeline. BTW after 35 years in the industry I am more convinced than ever that hard wired logic reigns supreme and that microcode is evil.... ;-) dk ###### From: arargh504NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:28:13 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4254c2a9@news.meer.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr24.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1112858892 25016 209.100.226.24 (7 Apr 2005 07:28:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:28:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeeder.wxs.nl!meganewsservers.com!textfeed1.on.meganewsservers.com!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202556 On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 01:18:13 -0400, "Dan Koren" wrote: >Hardwired logic and a very deep >pipeline. > >BTW after 35 years in the industry I >am more convinced than ever that hard >wired logic reigns supreme and that >microcode is evil.... ;-) Maybe. But, I bet it's boatloads cheaper. :-) -- Arargh504 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:02:15 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4254c2a9@news.meer.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Thu, 07 Apr 05 11:04:29 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.59.181.128 X-Trace: sv3-zKmSvSU1lV1hekve/Sc4W7mqFL8Q/6s/PbPisV4lMIGy+pWtOiltuSZuGMTqUEVFexaIw4btm0HhXiA!6B0T7bUMioGhiRYEf295m6umN5qeNBILizOCk4YLQfCetaLp3ceygLXtwh2y/ulLQg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202578 In article <4254c2a9@news.meer.net>, "Dan Koren" wrote: > >"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message >news:ZcqdnSz8uMjEds7fRVn-vQ@io.com... >> In article <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> wrote: >> ... >>>It is too bad that he doesn't have the schematics of the Model 195; I >>>had always thought they might make a helpful starting point for someone >>>designing a Pentium-class microprocessor. >>> >>>I would definitely agree that the Pentium doesn't surpass the 195 in >>>elegance, >> >> Can anybody talk a little more about what made the 195 special? >> > > >The 370/195 was a heroic design, >comparable to thenBoeing 747-SP ;-) > >Hardwired logic and a very deep >pipeline. > >BTW after 35 years in the industry I >am more convinced than ever that hard >wired logic reigns supreme and that >microcode is evil.... ;-) ROTFLMAO. I thought that the first time I met one. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: stegeman.h@12move.nl (Henk Stegeman) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 7 Apr 2005 11:56:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 32 Message-ID: <7980590c.0504071056.1fcc8e36@posting.google.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.251.116.241 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112900217 31660 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2005 18:56:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.rh-tec.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.meganewsservers.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202629 > > I don't have documentation on the 2841 microword, but I suspect > that I can figure out most of it. Hi Wally I do have documentation on the 2841 microword. Here it is: CA: 4+Alt bits to select the first ALU input register (for each cycle) CB: 2 bits to select the second ALU input (not all regs useable on B) CD: 4+Alt bits to select the ALU output target CV: 1 bit for true/complement input to ALU CC: 3 bits to select the ALU operation CN: 6 bits for the next microword address bits [7-2] CL: 4 bits to select the value of or one of 14 test objects for setting bit[1] of the next microword address CH: 4 bits to select the value of or one of 14 test objects for setting bit[0] of the next microword address CK: 8 bits for the constant field, which could be gated to input B. This was a dual use field, and was also used to select bits [12-8] of the next microword, when necessary. CS: 4 bits which decoded to setting or resetting one of 8 status bits Very good score !!! The CM, CU, CF and CG fields (memory control) where used on the /30 but not in the 2314. Henk Stegeman ###### From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Date: 12 Apr 2005 11:34:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <1113330876.213258.197830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.20.74.18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113330882 19789 127.0.0.1 (12 Apr 2005 18:34:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:34:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.20.74.18; posting-account=nvWrXgwAAAB7o1oNxaHki9KbF4cS-CK- Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in2p3.fr!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202910 Dan Koren wrote: > The 370/195 was a masterpiece of processor architecture > that has yet to be matched, let alone surpassed.... ;-) I'm still confused as to the differences, if any, between the S/360-195 and the S/370-195. Could anyone explain the differences and how many built? (I think even the S/360 version had monolithic storage). I gather that both models evolved out of work for the S/360-91. If I understood the Pugh S/360 book correctly, there were very view model 195s built (either 360 or 370) and it was more of a prestige kind of machine--fast, but a money loser due to high construction expense? In Tom Watson's memoirs (Father Son & Co) he says (in long hindsight) that building supercomputers was a specialty, like building sports cars. Control Data (with Seymour Cray) was good at it, kind of like the Porsche of computing. IBM was more of a General Motors, building for a mass market. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:48:10 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1113330876.213258.197830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:48:05 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+BJK2InFj3bzGUT/jQcdmXiLKGc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-M0RTYFYU3Q24vq0gx7GYTgGfBg6Amugj3JOeyRlHwxy5MVDzabf0aD66szne5vc+9kY6JKfE5k2zxgt!zjIa8YRfbCfBMNqQLC4jF/aOaRKBq/AUT0QHAqDPsI1j3h0ZErzaWcrGf8hIpx8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!nntp.infostrada.it!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!80.239.136.19.MISMATCH!tsicnews.teliasonera.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!38.144.126.100.MISMATCH!feed5.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202916 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I'm still confused as to the differences, if any, between the > S/360-195 and the S/370-195. Could anyone explain the differences > and how many built? (I think even the S/360 version had monolithic > storage). I gather that both models evolved out of work for the > S/360-91. the 370/195 had the "new" (non-virtual memory) 370 instructions (like insert character under mask, etc). i was also told the 370/195 had better fault tolerant characteristics and some retry of soft-errors (compared to 360/195) ... some statistic that the number of components in the 195 ... the probability of some kind of soft failures was on the order of daily.. sjr had 195 up thru the late 70s ... and besides the supercomputer venue some of the large financial houses and airlines had them for high end transaction processing (financial transaction switching and airline res system). the eastern airline res system was one of that i believe ran on 195 (south florida) and was part of the input into amadeus (my wife served stint as amadeus chief architect for a time). that was one of the recent references to the nail in FS (future system) coffin http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#19 Where should the type information be: in tags and descriptors i got involved with the 195 group when they were look at adding dual i-stream support to 370/195 ... from the software standpoint it would look like dual-processor operation ... but it was very akin to the recent processor hardware threading ... aka the scenario was that most codes weren't able to keep the pipeline full because most branches causing pipeline stall/drain (mip/thruput nominally was about half of peak). there was some hope that dual i-stream support would keep the pipeline full ... and show aggregate peak thruput. recent past post in this thread http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#4 System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### Reply-To: "Dan Koren" From: "Dan Koren" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1113330876.213258.197830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net Message-ID: <425c5bce@news.meer.net> X-Original-Trace: 12 Apr 2005 16:37:50 -0700, adsl-209-233-25-155.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Authenticated-User: meer Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:36:46 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.157.152.10 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1113349073 209.157.152.10 (Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:37:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:37:53 GMT Organization: NTT/VERIO Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ifi.unizh.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!5cd0c76e!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202930 wrote in message news:1113330876.213258.197830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > If I understood the Pugh S/360 book correctly, there > were very view model 195s built (either 360 or 370) > and it was more of a prestige kind of machine--fast, > but a money loser due to high construction expense? > Not an issue for the kind of applications I was working on at the time.... ;-) dk ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:04:15 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1113330876.213258.197830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:57:29 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z1srQZwFqXX3eRpbAOJ9PjSmqzA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.173.231.147 X-Trace: sv3-1pYj5P9gZwWHxawOTrb+Fzt/0nTXXHrToMb04BASHyxoDlDvFQWI1mVgpI4RuIkdPxlhZMnj2hzjQUY!G9mrvFxd+z7w1XzHvYwUuwCFsDLKE4Ih1K5wZSDy2ITJ40bNBthpS0HfsmHbaAA1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:202943 the death of FS also saw the (re-)ascension of marketing, accountants, and MBAs. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys 801/risc could be viewed as a swinging to the opposite extreme ... demonstrating with cp.r and pl.8 software technology could be used to compensate for extremely simple hardware (lack of features) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:43:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:43:51 -0700 From: glen herrmannsfeldt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_mc4e.563$r6.403@news.itd.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.18.187.38 X-Trace: sv3-VODiMCSW4E2+U9eJf/ROx3ancyj7Mp8mrdPOAak0pnZly5Ihg29667Jmo/qDMDiSZtUtW9ccvnZ29uh!Q9qEgXDgvbkKc9lw8Fh8SxyfPO0DifbsafAQ4++nt97MSDeUYKrFakiO1dm9riXdqiQTuw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:203426 Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > sarr@news.itd.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) writes: >>My memory on this subject is particularly unreliable, but I believe the >>165 had virtual memory hardware but the 85 did not. > 165-ii was a field hardware retrofit of virtual memory hardware to > 165s currently in the field ... and it was a significant effort. The 165 seems to have some imprecise interrupts, at least more than I would have otherwise expected. Those don't work very will with DAT, so did they have to fix them, too? -- glen ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:55:22 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:55:39 -0700 From: glen herrmannsfeldt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch Subject: Re: System/360; Hardwired vs. Microcoded References: <1112564185.958064.137560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4253572c$3@news.meer.net> <1112761272.364773.187240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1112805730.777388.249740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1112805730.777388.249740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.18.187.38 X-Trace: sv3-O4SjKzEI1MFMewGbAWHXR04C/h1iqu97ivRikBh+vQMrFlEDUNLtssly7LdgE+0cRWfnO4lqEnV3eeM!0U+li73c1eC8NSLjy7iT1dAdrm5wb/RZ/GnGScRwrkJVlNKaIS+j9tD2TUyiUb5/SGbkUA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.31 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!news1.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:203427 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote: (snip) > In any event, the Model 195 was basically a Model 91 with a 32K cache > made from that up-and-coming technology, semiconductor RAM. As I understand it, the 91 was the first commercial machine using semiconductor RAM. I believe 4 bit chips, for the storage keys, or maybe it was 16. Fast, but small. -- glen