and in any case this is less about ramdisk size but more about raidframe which we're going to get rid off eventually (when marco ever gets softraid upt o a usable level, read rebuild working)
* Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> [2009-04-20 11:38]: > off the top of my head (remembered from bumping into limits with > flashboot), I think there are some restrictions imposed by ISA, and > of course some small machines have limited RAM which this eats into. > > > > On 2009/04/20 11:59, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > > On 20 April 2009 ?. 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. :( > -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
