[Info-vax] virtual consoles

[H Vlems]

On Oct 19, 10:31 am, hel... at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> In article <q9VCm.12314$U5.173... at newsb.telia.net>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_Söderholm?= <jan-erik.soderh... at telia.com>
> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> > > In article <4adada39$0$83248$e4fe5... 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Phillip, IIRC the images that run on a DS100, -200 or -300 are on a
freeware cd. If not, I have the images for the first two models.
Hans