English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.AmigaOS

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 16 October 2021, 05:55   #1
ahandyman59
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posts: 61
AmigaOS3.2 on A2000 with A2630 (030) CPU Board

I have an Amiga 2000 that I've used for years. Today I upgraded the kickstart from 3.1.4 to 3.2. Now every time it boots, it give me that irritating message about needing the 68030.library file. I dug out my library disk and copied the 68030.library file and the mmu.library files over to DH0evs and it still gives me that irritating error message. I have tried removing all 68k libraries. Tried copying the 68020.library file over and renaming it 68030.library. I have tried most combinations I can think of and the error won't go away and won't let the system start without something being done. It does say one possibility is to remove the cpu check from startup and use some utility to start the MMU stuff, but I don't know any command to start the mmu stuff. The library files I am using are those from the MMULib stuff on Aminet.

I'm starting to wonder if the old girl (a2000), with the A2630 accelerator board isn't able to deal with kickstart 3.2... Any ideas?

Last edited by ahandyman59; 16 October 2021 at 05:58. Reason: 060 in title is wrong...
ahandyman59 is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 09:56   #2
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,740
Then you didn't install it properly. The installation procedure will copy everything into the right place, including those libraries. They need to go to LIBS:, and *removing* them is not going to help.

In other words, please use the Os installer. Failing that, copy them manually, but please in the right place. The right place is the LIBS directory of your boot disk.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 13:29   #3
SpeedGeek
Moderator
SpeedGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 58
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahandyman59 View Post
I'm starting to wonder if the old girl (a2000), with the A2630 accelerator board isn't able to deal with kickstart 3.2... Any ideas?
It appears to be a case of vice versa. If OS 3.2 can't "Deal" with your A2000/A2630 system without requiring you to install a 68030.library, then it's probably time to reconsider your decision to purchase this version.

You should question why all the Commodore versions (1.3-3.1), the H&P versions (3.5-3.9) and the Cloanto version (3.X) of Amiga OS can deal just fine with your system without this "New" requirement.

EDIT:
It is apparently possible to use OS 3.2 without having the 68030.library installed. See below.

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 16 October 2021 at 22:35. Reason: New detailed information was provided.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 15:07   #4
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedGeek View Post
It appears to be a case of vice versa. If OS 3.2 can't "Deal" with your A2000/A2630 system without requiring you to install a 68030.library, then it's probably time to reconsider your decision to purchase this version.

You should question why all the Commodore versions (1.3-3.1), the H&P versions (3.5-3.9) and the Cloanto version (3.X) of Amiga OS can deal just fine with your system without this "New" requirement.

Stop the nonsense please. You know as well as I do what the library is good for, and that it's merrily a boot warning, and not a boot failure. If the OP had installed the system properly, everything would be fine. Yes, of course you can boot without the library, it's just not recommended because some setups then don't work. And, as you know of course, would not work either "out of the box" with Kick 3.1 or any other kickstart on the market.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 15:27   #5
Lisko
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Avellino, Italy
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahandyman59 View Post
I have an Amiga 2000 that I've used for years. Today I upgraded the kickstart from 3.1.4 to 3.2. Now every time it boots, it give me that irritating message about needing the 68030.library file. I dug out my library disk and copied the 68030.library file and the mmu.library files over to DH0evs and it still gives me that irritating error message. I have tried removing all 68k libraries. Tried copying the 68020.library file over and renaming it 68030.library. I have tried most combinations I can think of and the error won't go away and won't let the system start without something being done. It does say one possibility is to remove the cpu check from startup and use some utility to start the MMU stuff, but I don't know any command to start the mmu stuff. The library files I am using are those from the MMULib stuff on Aminet.

I'm starting to wonder if the old girl (a2000), with the A2630 accelerator board isn't able to deal with kickstart 3.2... Any ideas?
Don't forget to also copy 680x0.library together with 68030.library and mmu.library to libs: folder.
Lisko is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 17:58   #6
SpeedGeek
Moderator
SpeedGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 58
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Stop the nonsense please. You know as well as I do what the library is good for, and that it's merrily a boot warning, and not a boot failure. If the OP had installed the system properly, everything would be fine. Yes, of course you can boot without the library, it's just not recommended because some setups then don't work. And, as you know of course, would not work either "out of the box" with Kick 3.1 or any other kickstart on the market.
What nonsense? The OP did not state that this was a boot warning, he stated he got an irritating message about "Needing" the 68030.library.

Your reply to the OP was to explain how to properly install the library, not to explain how to boot without it. Now, that this more detailed information was finally posted, I can use it to update my previous post.

So, because there are a few 030 systems which might not work out of the box, all of the 030 systems should now install a performance and memory reducing solution? Now, that's what I call nonsense.

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 17 October 2021 at 11:52.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Old 16 October 2021, 18:23   #7
ahandyman59
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Posts: 61
I went back and used the install again in MMULib and this time it apparently worked correctly. The system boots normally and all is good again. Problem solved.
ahandyman59 is offline  
Old 17 October 2021, 12:38   #8
stevelord
Registered User

stevelord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Yes, of course you can boot without the library, it's just not recommended because some setups then don't work. And, as you know of course, would not work either "out of the box" with Kick 3.1 or any other kickstart on the market.

What similar setups wouldn't work out of the box with 3.1? I appreciate that's an open-ended question but I'm interested in understanding what you had in mind.
stevelord is offline  
Old 18 October 2021, 09:25   #9
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,740
Bridge boards with a 68030 will hang, and some graphics cards, most notably the CVision3D, will not work reliable with a 68030. This goes down to a hardware defect of the 68030 which, despite having a "cache inhibit input" line, caches long-word aligned long word write accesses in its cache, regardless of whether the hardware asserts the line or not. Both the bridge board, and some graphics cards, have long-word aligned long word hardware read/write registers that would be cached erroneously.

The 68030.library fixes this, by enabling the MMU. Actually,the manuals of said bridge boards come with the recommendation to insert "Enforcer QUIET" into the startup-sequence, which did the same back then. However, the sole purpose of "Enforcer" was a somewhat different one, and it has been superseded a long time ago, and the bridge boards are not the only hardware that have trouble with the 030.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 21 October 2021, 13:23   #10
stevelord
Registered User

stevelord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Oof that sounds like a nasty bug. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
stevelord is offline  
Old 21 October 2021, 15:44   #11
SpeedGeek
Moderator
SpeedGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 58
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelord View Post
Oof that sounds like a nasty bug. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
The limited explanation of the problem itself does not offer a satisfactory explanation of the solution provided. First, even though Enforcer was not specifically intended to fix BridgeBoard 030 systems, it worked well enough in that regard that Commodore found no reason to replace it.

I find claims that Enforcer was "Superseded A Long Time Ago" to be rather suspicious. If you want the latest version it's still available on Mike Sinz's website.

Enforcer has an important advantage over the library solution since it runs as an executable. This makes it possible to create a script to run Enforcer before the Janus software starts and also send Enforcer a break when the Janus software quits.

The other more important information about the performance penalties of the provided solution was conveniently omitted. While, it's not possible to provide exact detailed performance information. The following general example should suffice.

Generic 68030 system:

MMU enabled (LE config) = 30% performance loss

MMU enabled (ME config) = 20% performance loss

MMU enabled (HE config) = 10% performance loss

MMU disabled = 0% performance loss

LE = low efficiency, ME = medium efficiency, HE = high efficiency

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 21 October 2021 at 19:57.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Old 07 November 2021, 04:23   #12
thebajaguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Rhode Island / United States
Posts: 59
In 3.5 years of Tech Support at GVP back in the day, the standard solution for BridgeCard enabling with A3001/Combo 030/G-Force boards (with MMUs) was:

1. In S:Startup-Sequence, modify the SetPatch command with 'NoCache' option to keep the data cache off initially.
- this will actually cause the OS 3.2 CPU Check command in S:Startup-Sequence to pass without error.
2. The call to Bindrivers to load the Janus driver for the Bridgecard (use 2.1, not the earlier offerings) out of sys:Expansion will now work. RTG software should also be started around this time.
3. Once you have all things operational, use the last SetCPU offering (v1.6) from Dave Haynie / AmiNet with the 'cache FastROM' options, and it works around both the CIIN issue and the BridgeCard's (or RTG's) shared memory problem, and remaps Kickstart to 32-bit RAM. Place it after the Binddrivers or RTG startup commands in s:Startup-sequence, or place it in S:User-Startup toward the end to be 'safe'.

This should work for C= A2630's with Full (non-EC) CPU, too. If your system is a bit more complex, I'll point you to the MuLibs package.

My original daily driver at GVP (before the A3000T w/GF040) was an A2000 w/030 and A2286 BridgeCard. The latter was for the DOS-based CRM software we used for call-tracking/case management. The Amiga and PC both had Ethernet networking, too.

This basic information (reworded slightly), and the MuLibs option, is mentioned in the CPU-FAQ.readme included with the OS 3.2 documentation in the FAQs folder of the OS 3.2 CD image. It's toward the bottom, under the 68030 section. I actually wrote that document.

Last edited by thebajaguy; 07 November 2021 at 04:44.
thebajaguy is offline  
Old 07 November 2021, 15:52   #13
SpeedGeek
Moderator
SpeedGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 58
Posts: 645
I agree that SetCPU is a practical option for BridgeBoard 030 systems with certain limitations. In particular, SetCPU was developed for OS 1.3-2.x systems and would only have some limited degree of compatibility with OS 3.x systems.

Another issue (not BridgeBoard related) is the possibility of supporting the few Zorro III I/O Boards which might need the CIIN feature/bug fix.

Enforcer, should be able to handle both of the above issues quite well since it's development continued long after the end of Commodore.

However, SetCPU does have the same advantage (as an executable) as noted above.

BTW, all of the options discussed thus far would qualify as "LE Config" MMU solutions noted above.

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 07 November 2021 at 19:47.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Old 11 April 2022, 08:37   #14
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 41
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedGeek View Post
The other more important information about the performance penalties of the provided solution was conveniently omitted. While, it's not possible to provide exact detailed performance information. The following general example should suffice.

Generic 68030 system:

MMU enabled (LE config) = 30% performance loss

MMU enabled (ME config) = 20% performance loss

MMU enabled (HE config) = 10% performance loss

MMU disabled = 0% performance loss

LE = low efficiency, ME = medium efficiency, HE = high efficiency
Are there any ME or HE implementations available?
patrik is offline  
Old 11 April 2022, 10:04   #15
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,740
This is not a matter of the implementation. It is the matter of a configuration, in particular of the page size. The default page size of the 68030 configuration is to use 1K pages, which is picked if the library finds the MMU unconfigured, otherwise it will pick whatever it finds.

The reason for that is that it is the most compatible setting that works under all Os configurations. All versions of Kickstart below 3.0 use a chip mem start address of 0x400, corresponding to a 1K zero-page zone. If a larger page size is used, parts of the chip mem will not be reachable by the CPU anymore, and accesses to this zone then have to be emulated, making the access to this region extremely slow. All higher kickstart versions use a zero-page start address of 0x1000, corresponding to 4K pages you find on the 68040 and 68060, which was a modification useful for these processors as they do not support a 1K page setup. Anything above 4K pages again causes the same trouble and should be avoided for that reason. The 68030 supports up to 32K page sizes, but that is too much also for some other applications - 16K would be an upper practical limit, which - however - already requires preparation of a larger zero page size. This happened in Os 3.1.4.

In how much a particular configuration impacts performance depends on the application and how its memory access pattern looks.

Thus, in total:
Kickstart < 3.0 : most practical setting is the one present, 1K pages.
Kickstart < 3.1.4: most practical page size is 4k
Kickstart >= 3.1.4: most practical page size is 16k
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 11 April 2022, 14:29   #16
SpeedGeek
Moderator
SpeedGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 58
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrik View Post
Are there any ME or HE implementations available?

Yes, and I released a benchmark tool so users can actually see the performance differences:

https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=92994

BTW, there is nothing special about the 1K page size. Mike Sinz was just being lazy and since Enforcer was primarily intended as a debugging tool, performance was not a priority. But when Commodore decided to use it for fixing BridgeBoards, that's when the performance issue should have been given some consideration.

The only reason that a page size > 4K would be a problem is if you want to manage the Zero page area differently than Chip RAM. This is an optional choice rather than a required one.

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 11 April 2022 at 15:08.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Old 11 April 2022, 20:37   #17
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 41
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
In how much a particular configuration impacts performance depends on the application and how its memory access pattern looks.
What made me notice was the difference in TCP/IP performance.

The below local network receive speeds test are from my A3000 030@25MHz, X-Surf-100, Kickstart3.1, OS3.2.1.

With 68030.library and mmu.library:
Code:
8.Ram Disk:> version 68030.library 
68030.library 46.6
8.Ram Disk:> ttcp -s -r 
ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001  tcp
ttcp-r: socket
ttcp-r: accept from 192.168.1.1
ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 28.22 real seconds = 580.58 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 2049 I/O calls, msec/call = 14.10, calls/sec = 72.61
ttcp-r: 0:28real
8.Ram Disk:> ttcp -s -r 
ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001  tcp
ttcp-r: socket
ttcp-r: accept from 192.168.1.1
ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 28.26 real seconds = 579.76 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 2049 I/O calls, msec/call = 14.12, calls/sec = 72.51
ttcp-r: 0:28real
Without:
Code:
8.Ram Disk:> version 68030.library 
kan ej finna objektet
8.Ram Disk:> ttcp -s -r 
ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001  tcp
ttcp-r: socket
ttcp-r: accept from 192.168.1.1
ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 24.16 real seconds = 678.15 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 2049 I/O calls, msec/call = 12.07, calls/sec = 84.81
ttcp-r: 0:24real
8.Ram Disk:> ttcp -s -r 
ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/0, port=5001  tcp
ttcp-r: socket
ttcp-r: accept from 192.168.1.1
ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 24.14 real seconds = 678.71 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 2049 I/O calls, msec/call = 12.06, calls/sec = 84.88
ttcp-r: 0:24real
Not like half the speed, but at 16% difference, it was noticeable.

Would it be possible to add an option to increase the page size?
patrik is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A2000 A2630 and Hardframe issue ppieczul support.Hardware 8 19 May 2018 10:46
wtb: for 060 board without cpu for a1200 Nikolaj_sofus MarketPlace 4 13 January 2010 13:36
060 SysSpeed CPU FPU? ancalimon support.Hardware 7 03 January 2010 15:10
A2630 accelerator for the A2000 DoogUK MarketPlace 6 12 April 2008 23:03
Motorola 060 CPU's For Sale jmmijo MarketPlace 0 29 April 2002 04:18

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.10428 seconds with 13 queries