Stuart Henderson,
Thank you for encouragement, it is much needed and appreciated.
> Good stuff. Now that it's working, it might be interesting to follow-up
with> a list post including the dmesg which might give us clues as to why 5.6
didn't> work :-)
Do you mean typing "dmesg" from the $ prompt and post what I get?
I need to add that I could install OpenBSD 5.7 from both USB 3.0 and USB 2.0
port. So, OpenBSD 5.7 not only provided support for USB 3.0, but also for that
specific USB 2.0 port that was not supported by OpenBSD 5.6.
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> From: s...@spacehopper.org
> Subject: Re: Installing OpenBSD 5.6 using a USB Flash drive
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:46:02 +0000
>
> On 2015-02-19, Raimo Niskanen <raimo+open...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:30:29PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >> On February 18, 2015 11:43:56 AM CET, Markus Kolb <open...@tower-net.de>
wrote:
> >> >Am 2015-02-17 17:27, schrieb A Y:
> >> >> dmesg|grep ^.d0 returns only "sd0"
> >> >> sysctl hw.disknames returns "sd0" and "rd0"
> >> >>
> >> >> my machine is a 10.1 inch netbook Lenovo E10-30 running Intel Celeron
> >> >
> >> >> N2830
> >> >> Dual Core 64 bit. Do you think I should have used amd64 installation
> >> >> instead
> >> >> of i386?
> >> >
> >> >Will depend mostly on your available RAM.
> >> >i386 is 32 bit.
> >>
> >> Either way, I see no reason not to run amd64 on that processor.
> >
> > Won't i386 use less memory making it more efficient up to about 2 GB of
RAM
> > which this machine has?
>
> Yes, also i386 will make better use of cache on the cpu which means some
> software will be faster.
>
> However amd64 provides a larger virtual address space which has security
> benefits (better ASLR). It also has more registers which means other
software
> will be faster.
>
> > Of course, if RAM would be added you would regret not having installed
> > amd64...
>
> Yes to this too.
>
> It is a trade-off.
