[Info-vax] virtual consoles

[Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply]

In article <q9VCm.12314$U5.173158 at newsb.telia.net>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_Söderholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
writes: 

> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> > In article <4adada39$0$83248$e4fe514c at news.xs4all.nl>, Robin Schipper
> > <"thespriteman <remove_this> writes: 
> > 
> >> we have several OpenVMS systems (and even Cisco switches) connected from 
> >> the Console to a few Terminal servers, and that terminal server is 
> >> trough LAT or TCPIP connected to our central management systems (witch 
> >> has PCM (polycentre Console Manager) running)
> >> on our central management system we can watch events comming by from the 
> >> systems and we can log in to the console if we need to.
> > 
> > Interesting.  I have some terminal servers---8 serial connections and an 
> > ethernet connection, or whatever.  Normally, to connect several serial 
> > lines to one or more systems over the network.  But they can apparently 
> > be used in "reverse"?
> 
> What is connected in "reverse" ?

I was thinking of using a terminal server to connect several terminals 
to a LAT service, i.e. the terminal would be connected to the TS by a 
serial line, and the TS would be on the network and would go from there 
to a LAT service via LAT.

> Terminal servers are connected to something having
> a serial port. May it be a printer or a consol port, there
> isn't that much of a difference and neither of them is
> "in reverse".

That would be: user is connecting to the TS over the network, and then 
the TS connects to something serial.  That is reverse compared to what I 
described above.  In the "non-reverse" mode, there are several terminals 
connected, presumably the source of the name "terminal server".  When 
the serial connections are going to printers or console connections, 
there are no terminals, but it's not called a console server.  (I've 
heard the term "print server", but don't think it refers to printers on 
a terminal server.)

> The only thing that might be called "reverse" is how the
> connection (session) to the port of the terminalserver
> is *established*. Sometimes someone at the port doing a
> "connect" to something with a telnet service (like someone
> sitting at a VT220 connected to a terminal server doing a
> "connect <some-VMS-box>") is regarded as "normal" and when
> the VMS server is establishing the session with the port is
> regarded as "in reverse". But there is nothing "reverse" with
> how soeting is serialy connected with the port itself.

OK; I THINK that is what I meant.

> > I have really old terminal servers---20 years or so.  Would they work?

> Easy to test. Note that this (establishing sessions to ports
> from the network) works equaly well over LAT.

I'm pretty sure what I have is LAT only (no TELNET).

I've recently moved to a house with much more room and a dedicated 
computer room, so I'll be testing a lot of stuff soon.

Presumably, if I set things up so that consoles are accessible from 
another VMS machine via a TS, I would have no more terminals as consoles 
(only one console port per machine) or rather would have to swap cables.
(I like VTs as consoles; I'm thinking of a mechanism to get to the 
console from outside if I am not home.  If I can log into some machine 
from outside (part of the cluster or not), then from there I can get to 
the consoles via the terminal server.)

I have 8 strands of wire going to each room.  Unfortunately, 2 for TV, 2
for telephone and 4 for ethernet means I'm full.  I would like to have a
serial line from a VT in the attic to a VMS machine in the cellar 3
floors below.  To get around this, I plan to use a terminal server in
"conventional" (as opposed to "reverse") mode: plug the VT into the TS
so that I can get out of the attic via ethernet but still have the VT.
(I will put a workstation in the attic as well, but don't want to keep
it running all the time.  A VT is for quick access.  Ideal would be just
a monitor, but the cable length is a problem.  Maybe an X-terminal would
be an alternative if it boots much faster than a workstation.)  This is
a separate issue to the "console server" idea, but also involves
terminal servers.  Fortunately, I have 3 or 4.  They are DECserver 200
and 250, IIRC, perhaps "MC" as well.  Presumably they will do what I
want.