Discussion:
IBM TSS
(too old to reply)
David Lesher
2020-05-07 20:46:26 UTC
Permalink
No, not TSO... TSS.

I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Peter Flass
2020-05-07 20:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
I played with it on Hercules a year or so ago. Never had the time to devote
to it that it needed.
--
Pete
danny burstein
2020-05-07 21:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
I played with it on Hercules a year or so ago. Never had the time to devote
to it that it needed.
TSS? ah...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square_Stores
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bob Eager
2020-05-07 22:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
In
september.org>
Post by danny burstein
Post by Peter Flass
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
I played with it on Hercules a year or so ago. Never had the time to
devote to it that it needed.
TSS? ah...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square_Stores
Nah...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSS-8
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Peter Flass
2020-05-08 00:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by danny burstein
In
september.org>
Post by danny burstein
Post by Peter Flass
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
I played with it on Hercules a year or so ago. Never had the time to
devote to it that it needed.
TSS? ah...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square_Stores
Nah...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSS-8
Now that I think of it, I used the banner page from TSS to illustrate a
wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooling#Banner_page
--
Pete
David Lesher
2020-05-14 23:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Now that I think of it, I used the banner page from TSS to illustrate a
wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooling#Banner_page
Thank you. Have not seen that in decades...
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Bob Eager
2020-05-14 23:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
Post by Peter Flass
Now that I think of it, I used the banner page from TSS to illustrate a
wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooling#Banner_page
Thank you. Have not seen that in decades...
That's been mis-attributed somewhere along the line. I know nothing about
the banner.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
David Lesher
2020-05-17 16:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
That's been mis-attributed somewhere along the line. I know nothing about
the banner.
Apologies, and thanks to whoever did provide it....
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Jorgen Grahn
2020-05-18 05:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
Post by Bob Eager
That's been mis-attributed somewhere along the line. I know nothing about
the banner.
Apologies, and thanks to whoever did provide it....
Peter Flass.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Gerard Schildberger
2020-05-07 21:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Heard of it? Yuppers, I helped write part of it. IBM was having
problems getting the TSS code developed and debugged, so IBM farmed
part of it out to CUC (Computer Usage Company), at that time, it
was the oldest software house in the USA (founded 1955 and lasted
'til 1986). While I was at CUC, I didn't know what the code was
for or what it was called, I have forgotten the code name for the
project. Oh my gawd, the endless pointers! A really big bowl of
spaghetti, to be sure. _______________________ Gerard Schildberger
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-05-07 21:42:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?

I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
was a student.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Peter Flass
2020-05-08 00:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?
I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
was a student.
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term originated
by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1] attributed to
the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering

Sounds like any quote can be attributed by adding another level of
indirection.
--
Pete
Bob Eager
2020-05-08 12:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering

For this, you need a PDP-10!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Peter Flass
2020-05-08 18:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of levels of
indirection.
--
Pete
Scott Lurndal
2020-05-08 19:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of levels of
indirection.
Burroughs medium systems allowed infinite amounts of indirectly.

The processor started a timer when executing each instruction, if the timer
fired before the instruction completed, the processor would branch to a
MCP (kernel) vector with a syndrome register noting instruction timeout.

Every memory operand could be marked as indirect address, and subsequent
addresses read could, in turn, also be marked indirect.

There was also an instruction (SLT - Search Linked List) that followed
pointers until a null pointer (0xeeeeee) or the processor instruction
timer triggered.
John Levine
2020-05-08 21:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)?
In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
you didn't want your program to hang.

The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.

Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
approach was more elegant.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Peter Flass
2020-05-09 16:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Bob Eager
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)?
In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
you didn't want your program to hang.
The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.
Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
approach was more elegant.
For some values of elegance.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
2020-05-09 17:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Bob Eager
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)?
In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
you didn't want your program to hang.
The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.
Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
approach was more elegant.
For some values of elegance.
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
--
Pete
Dennis Boone
2020-05-09 20:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
There's an old rule about capacity limits (how many _x_ are allowed).
There are only three numbers in this arena:

Zero
One
Many

De
John Levine
2020-05-09 20:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an
arbitrary limit.

On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
crashed.

Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
had those two or three deep for switches.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Gerard Schildberger
2020-05-09 22:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an
arbitrary limit.
On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
crashed.
Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
had those two or three deep for switches.
--
Regards,
John Levine, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
When did that change? It used to be that if an EX instruction executed
an EX instruction, you'd get an 0C3 abend. It used to be a favorite
way to cause an ABEND, as you'd know it was YOUR abend, not some random
instruction. ________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Bob Eager
2020-05-09 23:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Peter Flass
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is
too few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an arbitrary
limit.
On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
crashed.
Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
had those two or three deep for switches.
--
Regards,
John Levine, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://jl.ly
When did that change? It used to be that if an EX instruction
executed an EX instruction, you'd get an 0C3 abend. It used to be a
favorite way to cause an ABEND, as you'd know it was YOUR abend, not
some random instruction. ________________________________________ Gerard
Schildberger
The discussion is about the PDP-10.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Bob Eager
2020-05-08 21:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of
indirection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
For this, you need a PDP-10!
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly
including indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of
levels of indirection.
That was my point...
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-08 11:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?
I forget where I read it...

HTTP/3 addresses HTTP/2's "TCP over TCP" problem by migrating to a
"TCP over TCP over UDP" model.
Jorgen Grahn
2020-05-08 12:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?
I forget where I read it...
HTTP/3 addresses HTTP/2's "TCP over TCP" problem by migrating to a
"TCP over TCP over UDP" model.
Didn't Google want to design their own transport protocol (or whatever
you call TCP, UDP and SCTP) over IP, too?

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Jorgen Grahn
2020-05-08 11:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?
I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
was a student.
David Wheeler; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
2020-05-09 22:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
univ had 709 with 1401 for unit record front end when I took two
semester hour intro to computers/fortran. the univ. was talked into
replacing 709/1401 with 360/67 for tss/360. at the end of the semester
the 1401 was (temporarily) replaced with 360/30 (as part of transition
to 360/67) and I got programming job to redo 1401 MPIO (tape<->unit
record) on 360/30 (they could have just ran 1401 MPIO on 360/30 in 1401
hardware emulation mode, but they apparently wanted to get some 360
experience). I got to design & implement my own monitor, commands,
device drivers, interrupt handlers, error recovery, storage management,
etc. Univ. shutdown datacenter on weekends and I (mostly) had datacenter
all to myself (although 48hrs w/o sleep could make monday morning
classes difficult). Within about ten weeks, I had 2000 card assembler
program that took 30mins to assemble under os/360 on 360/30 ... for
stand-alone version loaded with BPS loader ... or 60mins for version
that ran under OS/360 (DCB macros took 5-6 mins elapsed time each).

768kbyte 360/67 then replaced 709 & 360/30 ... and mostly ran os/360
... tss/360 never quite coming to product fruition. Few months later, I
was hired fulltime to be response of os/360 system. On weekends I
sometimes had to share the machine with IBM SE who was playing with
TSS/360.

Last week Jan1968, three people from the IBM science center came out and
installed CP67/CMS. The IBM SE and I put together a simulated
edit-compile-load-execute benchmark that I ran with 35 simulated users
under CP67 and he ran four simuulated users under TSS/360; the CP67 with
35 users had better interactive response and throughput thatn TSS/360
with four users. TSS/360 was enormous CPU and real storage hog ... IBM
did some TSS/360 1mbyte, single processor benchmarks compared to 2mbyte,
two processor benchmarks which got 3.8 times the throughput of the
single processor. IBM tried to spin that TSS/360 was so sophisticated
that its algorithms got nearly four times the thoughput with just twice
the hardware ... when realisticly TSS/360 needed over mbyte of real
storage just to handle the kernel before it could start getting any user
work done.

Before I graduate, I'm hired fulltime into small group in the Boeing CFO
office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services
(consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit to
bettern monitize the investment, even offering services to non-Boeing
entities). I thought Renton was possibly largest datacenter in the
world, something like $200M-$300M in 360 gear (60s dollar), 360/65s were
arriving faster than they could be installed, boxes constantly staged in
the hallways around the machine room. They get me a 1mbyte single
process 360/67 to play with and they bring up the dual processor 360/67
to Seattle from Boeing Huntsville (that had been configured as two
360/65 running OS/360).

When I graduate, instead of staying at Boeing, I join the cambridge
science center. I do a page-mapped filesystem for CP67/CMS (later ported
to VM370/CMS) that never ships to customers but I get it deployed at a
lot of installations (one of my hobbies after joining IBM was production
operating systems for internal datacenters, including the online
world-wide sales&marketing HONE systems). In moderately heavy filesystem
benchmarks get three times the throughput of standard CMS filesystem
... I would say I learned what *NOT* to do for paged-mapped filesystem
from TSS/360.

TSS/370 finally starts to come into production quality ... a lot of
performance work was done after they cut the organization from 1200
people to 20 people and they start getting 370/168 machines with 4mbytes
of memory (enough to start running applications w/o heavy page
thrashing). I had interactions off and on with the group through the
mid-80s.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
David Lesher
2020-05-14 23:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
TSS/370 finally starts to come into production quality ... a lot of
performance work was done after they cut the organization from 1200
people to 20 people and they start getting 370/168 machines with 4mbytes
of memory (enough to start running applications w/o heavy page
thrashing). I had interactions off and on with the group through the
mid-80s.
I first used in ~~1985. We had 100-150 users on it. I recall our
guru was A. L. Armsted. Someone told me that the IBM Support
office was in Dallas, and had 6-8 people. We, however, had Al.
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
2020-05-15 06:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lesher
I first used in ~~1985. We had 100-150 users on it. I recall our
guru was A. L. Armsted. Someone told me that the IBM Support
office was in Dallas, and had 6-8 people. We, however, had Al.
there was dallas ... and then a new project in boeblingan germany

there was project with AT&T to port UNIX on top of TSS kernel as moving
to 370 ... started before Amdahl's GOLD/UTS.

Issue was that both IBM & Amdhal UNIX ran in VM370 virtual machine
... because the field maintenance engineers required mainframe (real
hardware) error recovery and recording ... and to add that (mainframe
hardware error recovery/recording) to "native" UNIX was several times
larger than the straight forward 370 port.

SSUP was stripped down TSS/370 kernel (with mainframe error
recovery/recording) with UNIX APIs layered on top.

Although SSUP+UNIX had significant better performance (especially with
multiprocessor) than Amdahl UTS ... but there apparently was politics
inside AT&T. I would see Amdahl people fairly regularly at Stanford SLAC
sponsored monthly mainframe meeting ... and we would go out afterwards
to the Oasis (which has since closed) on El Camino ... just north of
stanford shopping center ... and they would tell lots of the internal
Amdahl politics. Simpson, from Houston HASP, had left IBM and was with
Amdahl in Dallas recreating "RASP" ... sort of mainframe MFT+ with real
paged mapped filesystem, contrasted to MVS which was MVT with separate
virtual address space for each application, but kept the OS/360
filesystem) ... and there was rivalry between him and the people in
silicon valley. I tried talking them into making truce with Simpson and
sort of doing UTS on stripped down RASP ... similar to what IBM was
doing with SSUP, a stripped down TSS with UNIX on top.

I also got email from the Dallas TSS/370 about the internal politics
that seemed to be going on inside of AT&T with SSUP and Unix on top.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
David Lesher
2020-05-17 17:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
there was dallas ... and then a new project in boeblingan germany
there was project with AT&T to port UNIX on top of TSS kernel
as moving to 370 ... started before Amdahl's GOLD/UTS.
[Many details..]

Thanks for things I can almost follow; I was a mere user of the
system. I don't recall Unix being mentioned at all while there;
I had Usenet access at home via a dialup public access site.

The vignette I was told was that Dallas would call Al for
help more often than he would call them...
--
A host is a host from coast to ***@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Loading...