Re: Max top end computer for Freebsd to run on

2013-06-07 Thread Mark Moellering
On 6/7/2013 7:52 PM, lokada...@gmx.de wrote: On 02.06.2013 22:34, Fbsd8 wrote: I'm a sub second speed freak. What is the max number of cpu's and memory size that Freebsd can handle? Can it handle 16 4ghz cpu's and 32gb of memory? I need a gaming server with some really big balls for hundreds o

Re: custom kernel installation

2013-06-07 Thread Polytropon
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 01:17:35 +0200, Norman Khine wrote: > thanks for the quick reply You're welcome. > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Polytropon wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:37:02 +0200, Norman Khine wrote: > > > hello, > > > i have a dedicated server from OVH and have updated freebsd

Re: Max top end computer for Freebsd to run on

2013-06-07 Thread lokada...@gmx.de
On 02.06.2013 22:34, Fbsd8 wrote: I'm a sub second speed freak. What is the max number of cpu's and memory size that Freebsd can handle? Can it handle 16 4ghz cpu's and 32gb of memory? I need a gaming server with some really big balls for hundreds of jails. Money is not a deciding factor here,

Re: custom kernel installation

2013-06-07 Thread Norman Khine
thanks for the quick reply On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:37:02 +0200, Norman Khine wrote: > > hello, > > i have a dedicated server from OVH and have updated freebsd to 9.1 and > want > > to enable IPFW in the kernel as this is not enabled. > > Why no

Re: custom kernel installation

2013-06-07 Thread Polytropon
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:37:02 +0200, Norman Khine wrote: > hello, > i have a dedicated server from OVH and have updated freebsd to 9.1 and want > to enable IPFW in the kernel as this is not enabled. Why not use the module for this? For many years now, you do not need a custom kernel if you want to u

custom kernel installation

2013-06-07 Thread Norman Khine
hello, i have a dedicated server from OVH and have updated freebsd to 9.1 and want to enable IPFW in the kernel as this is not enabled. the way i updated the system was to copy /boot/kernel.old to /boot/GENERIC then followed ch25 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-freeb

Re: 9.1-RELEASE slow boot

2013-06-07 Thread Polytropon
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:38:34 +0200, Fernando ApesteguĂ­a wrote: > Since I updated to 9.1-RELEASE my boot process seems to stall for a > while. Booting in verbose mode shows messages like these ones: > > Opening device da0 -> 6 (repeated like 30 times or so) > Opening device da1 -> 6 (repeated like 3

9.1-RELEASE slow boot

2013-06-07 Thread Fernando ApesteguĂ­a
Hi, Since I updated to 9.1-RELEASE my boot process seems to stall for a while. Booting in verbose mode shows messages like these ones: Opening device da0 -> 6 (repeated like 30 times or so) Opening device da1 -> 6 (repeated like 30 times or so) Opening device da2 -> 6 (repeated like 30 times or s

Re: ZFS: raid VS copies=n

2013-06-07 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jun 07), Quartz said: > How does the ZFS option 'copies=n' and raid relate to and interact with > each other? specifically recovery in the event of a failure. For > example, is having three disks in a raid-1 configuration with copies=1 > effectively the same as having three d

Re: ZFS: raid VS copies=n

2013-06-07 Thread Volodymyr Kostyrko
07.06.2013 18:52, Quartz: Question: How does the ZFS option 'copies=n' and raid relate to and interact with each other? specifically recovery in the event of a failure. For example, is having three disks in a raid-1 configuration with copies=1 effectively the same as having three disks in a raid

ZFS: raid VS copies=n

2013-06-07 Thread Quartz
Question: How does the ZFS option 'copies=n' and raid relate to and interact with each other? specifically recovery in the event of a failure. For example, is having three disks in a raid-1 configuration with copies=1 effectively the same as having three disks in a raid-0 with copies=3? Are t

Re: why is ports web page so far out of date

2013-06-07 Thread Waitman Gobble
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Waitman Gobble wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Shane Ambler wrote: >> On 05/06/2013 17:00, Waitman Gobble wrote: >> >>> If you must have a web based version, another option is DIY roll your >>> own ports index based on your own local ports tree. At least