[Info-vax] virtual consoles

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> 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.

Right, that is nothing different from what you are doing
when connecting to some VMS server. A LAT service is a LAT
service no mattar if it is "served" from a VMS box or from
something else (such as another TS).

> 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.

Yes, the "reverese" is in regard to what us *usualy* done.
There is as far as I know nothing "reverse" in telnet (that
is, in the telnet protocol) as such.


> 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.)

There is nothing particulary different between a "terminal server"
and a "print server". The main difference can be that the "print
server" has different physical connectors (more "printer friendly").
They usualy also support some additional print-protocols
such as LPD. But when using telnet (such as using TELNET$SYMBIONT
from VMS) to print, there is realy no difference between "terminal"
and "print" servers. They looks as acts mostly the same.

We have a lot of printers on standard Lantronix "terminal servers"
printing from VMS.

Any terminal server with just 1 or 2 ports could be called
a "printer server". It could also be builtin card in some
modern printers. When/if using telnet to print, there is
no difference from using an external terminal/print server.

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

OK, no big difference. Just SET HOST/LAT to the ports.
Or (if you have a VT-emulator on a PC) just connect from there.

The connection can use either a server/port or a "service"
if you setup the TS-port to have a LAT-service.


> 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 prefer to do it from my VT-emulator (Reflection in my case).
Or you could use a VT-terminal connected to some other 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.)

Correct. Just NAT the telnet (or SSH) port through your broadband
modem/router to one of your VMS boxes and your're set.


> 
> 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

"Old" Decserver runs LAT. You can set up any combination of
servial-to-serial links using a pair of DECservers. I used that
a long time before to move servial devices long distances using the
network. Just "serve" the port on one DECserver by defining a
"service" and set "prefered service" (or do a manual "connect")
from the other DECserver. LAT does the rest.


> and 250, IIRC, perhaps "MC" as well.  Presumably they will do what I
> want. 
>