Received: (from major@localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA19762
	for pups-liszt; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:14:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19757
	for <pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:14:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (STD1.2/BZS-8-1.0)
	id VAA07685; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:14:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by world.std.com (TheWorld/Spike-2.0)
	id AA14211; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:14:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:14:32 -0500
From: allisonp@world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
Message-Id: <199902190214.AA14211@world.std.com>
To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: DEQNA (was was Re: 2.9BSD:  mbuf.h)
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk


<The DEQNA uses a Intel 8751 (an EPROM version of 8051 family). I suspect th
<it may deal with the programming protocol and the ring buffers. The
<chip with the F (with bars top and bottom of the letter) is probably
<Fujitsu.

Correct on both cases.  

<These boards had a fairly bad reputation for lockups and dropped packets.
<There was a 20+ wire ECO along with a PAL chip (with 8 of the pins cut off
<soldered on top of another chip.

Actually there were revs A->n and each rev had a step.  The last one was 
N-11... it was marginal.  Good one tended to be good and the bad were PITA.
Also they tended to fail far often than MTBF predictions.

<The replacement ethernet controller was the DELQA, which was a complete
<redesign and used a 68000 processor.

The DELQA was not 68000. The board was far to small for that and had to be 
Qbus dual width and compatable with DEQNA. I have a few of them in my vaxen 
too.  The Unibus versions DEUNA and the later DELUA were 68k and very good. 
They were partly the reason why 730s and 750s were used for routers long 
after they were replaced for other tasks.

Allison