From: rbthomas@frogpond.rutgers.edu (Rick Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.time.ntp
Subject: Rom rev 2.4 status report
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:26:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Engineering Supercomputer Lab
Cc: rbthomas jk@tools.de


> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 20:06:57 +0200
> From: jk@leo.tools.de (Juergen Keil)
> To: rbthomas@frogpond.rutgers.edu (Rick Thomas)
> Subject: Re: New OpenBoot PROMs for desktop Sun SPARCs may solve timekeeping problem
> 
> 
> Some weeks ago you mentioned in comp.protocols.time.ntp that there is a new
> set of "OpenBoot" PROMs (Version 2.4) available from Sun that speeds up the
> console driver and that there is a patch available for older versions of
> the PROM (2.x) to gain the same speedup effect.
> 
> Two weeks ago we've got a new ELC and on power-up it tells me that it has got
> "ROM Rev. 2.4, 8 MB Memory Installed, ...".  But the forth monitor is
> unable to "setenv version2? true", this results only in an "unknown option"
> error message; looking though the forth defined words I can find only a
> procedure named version1.  Is the "ROM Rev. 2.4" message on power-up
> an indication, that the machine has these enhanced PROMs installed?
> Is the setenv statement above the correct way to enable the new console
> driver?

The "Dual-mode" PROMs are only for upgrades.  All new machines are
shipping with "single-mode" version 2.4 (though I have seen v 2.4.1 as
well) The console speedup is in version 2.4, regardless of whether it
is dual-mode or single mode.  Only the "dual-mode" PROMs have the
"version2?" variable.  In any case, if your boot-banner says "2.4",
then you've got the speedup.

> 
> You also mentioned a patch (to nvramrc?) for older versions of the
> Proms (2.x).  Is there a Patch-ID for this patch?  If you've got the
> patch can you mail it to me (or perhaps post it, I'm sure that other Sun
> users would be interested in this patch, too) if there are no legal problems
> with distributing the patch?

I'll give you what I have.  I have not personally tried it. I do not
have any machines it would be appropriate for.  If you try it, you do
so at your own risk.

Here is the code you can add to NVRAMRC:

        ramforth
        : cache-page  ( adr -- )  dup pgmap@ cacheable swap pgmap!  ;
        up@ cache-page
        here origin  do  i cache-page pagesize  +loop
       
How to edit NVRAMRC:
       
        Interrupt the boot sequence by typing the chord Stop-A after the
        banner is displayed.
       
        Get into Forth by typing the "n" command.
       
        Type
                nvedit
       
        Now you can edit the contents of NVRAMRC using EMACS commands.
        The display is all on one like, like in "ex" mode in "vi".
        To get out of the editor, type ^C .  Then save your mods with
       
                nvstore
       
        Enable the interpretation of NVRAMRC with
       
                setenv use-nvramrc? true
  
> 
> Thanks in advance
> --
> Juergen Keil          jk@tools.de ...!{uunet,mcsun}!unido!tools!jk

While we're at it, I have been running these PROMs for about a month now,
and I promised I would post a report on the results.  So here goes...

I have four machines sitting in a lab area available to a community of 
graduate students.  Three of them are IPC's, one is a SS1+.  The three
IPC's have had the speeded up PROMs for a month.  The SS1+ has PROM
version 1.6.

The incidence of "adjust: STEP" messages on the three IPC's during the
last month were 1, 3, 3.  On the SS1+, there were 11 such messages.  In
all cases, the "STEP" messages on the IPC's came closely after a
reboot.  During normal extended running (i.e. between reboots), there
were no STEP messages on the IPC's.  The STEP messages on the SS1+ were
randomly distributed.  Looking at the log files, I could find no
particular type of event with which they could be correlated.

The incidence of "Previous time adjustment didn't complete" messages
during the same period were 8, 0, 0 for the IPC's and 8 for the SS1+.
However, 7 of the messages for the first IPC occurred all during a
period when I was deliberately stress testing the console driver by
listing a very large text file (took over 15 minutes to display) to the
console without benefit of a window manager. So for "normal use" there
was only one "did not complete" message for all three IPC's, as
compared with 8 for the SS1+.


Conclusion --

The new PROMs do not totally eliminate the problems, but they are a
vast improvement.

I recommend that everybody who can upgrade as soon as possible.

========================================================================
Rick Thomas, Manager
Supercomputer Remote Access Center, Rm D117
Rutgers University, College of Engineering
Brett and Bowser Roads
Piscataway, NJ 08855-0909

Phone: (908) 932-4301
Fax:   (908) 932-5313
Internet: rbthomas@jove.rutgers.edu
UUCP: {any backbone site}!rutgers!rbthomas
========================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.time.ntp