On 20 April 2009 G. 11:38:19 Stuart Henderson wrote:
> there certainly are size restrictions on RAMDISK_CD.
Sorry for stupid questions, but what those restrictions are and what is
the reason for them? It's not the disk space, obviously. And if
RAMDISK_CD kernel could not load into memory then this machine will not
be much usable using GENERIC one either; administrator of this system
will compile it's own kernels anyway to free some more space in RAM...
May be I'm too far from reality in my house; yesterday it was still snow
falling in my window... :) Then I send my apologies to anyone who's
machine will not be usable after adding RAIDFrame into stock kernel.
> On 2009-04-19, Vadim Zhukov <persg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > Is there any particular reason to not have RAIDFrame built-in in
> > RAMDISK_CD kernels? I mean, are there any restrictions, except
> > kernel/ramdisk size, which are not the case with RAMDISK_CD,
> > obviously?
> >
> > Maybe I missed something digging through Google output containing a
> > lot of links to official FAQ and quotes from it. :(
--
Best wishes,
Vadim Zhukov
A: Because it messes up the way people read text.
Q: Why is a top-posting such a bad thing?
