On 2009-Jun-13 17:56:49 -0600, Dan Allen danalle...@airwired.net wrote:
How do I get to the old loader when the machine boots and immediately
stops? There is no ability at this point in the boot process to try
and get to the old loader that I know of. Is there a hidden magic key
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Dan Allen wrote:
How do I get to the old loader when the machine boots and immediately stops?
There is no ability at this point in the boot process to try and get to the
old loader that I know of. Is there a hidden magic key combination that
allows this?
You are correct
Pete French wrote:
Any suggestions, or words of wisdom from anyone who has done someething
similar themselevs in the past ?
The ASUS EeePC 701 is cheap as chips and can easily be mass-flashed with
NanoBSD images from a USB dongle.
I wrote a reflash script but didn't release it -- it just
Bruce Simpson b...@incunabulum.net wrote:
Pete French wrote:
Any suggestions, or words of wisdom from anyone who has done someething
similar themselevs in the past ?
The ASUS EeePC 701 is cheap as chips and can easily be mass-flashed with
NanoBSD images from a USB dongle.
However, the
Aragon Gouveia wrote:
snip
No, I don't think you will need a CF-SATA adapter. A simple CF-ATA
adapter should do. Those systems just have an Intel GCLF2 board in
them, which has both SATA and ATA:
TJ Varghese wrote:
They're also fanless. :)
Chipset has a fan, however the processor itself is fanless. I've read
You are correct about the Intel GCLF2, however I was talking
specifically about the tranquil system. They build their systems to be
fanless, so I assume they remove the stock
Aragon Gouveia wrote:
Hi,
Pete French wrote:
I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
That was my experiense when shopping
Aragon Gouveia wrote:
TJ Varghese wrote:
They're also fanless. :)
Chipset has a fan, however the processor itself is fanless. I've read
You are correct about the Intel GCLF2, however I was talking
specifically about the tranquil system. They build their systems to be
fanless, so I
I've tried the Atom330 (D945GCLF2). It works fine with amd64...however
it's rather wasted for 64bit considering it maxes out at 2gb. But I
suppose if you wanted to standardize on amd64 installs, this is good.
Size of memory doesnt bother me really - I made the move to amd64 because
of the
Just installed 7.2-release in an old Pavilion 4455 (PII, 256M)
and it runs great. Csuped src and ports and rebuilt world and
generic kernel for 7.2-stable and that went well.
My question is why are the files in /etc in 7.2-stable older
versions (generally) than in 7.2-release? I do not just
Pete French wrote:
I've tried the Atom330 (D945GCLF2). It works fine with amd64...however
it's rather wasted for 64bit considering it maxes out at 2gb. But I
suppose if you wanted to standardize on amd64 installs, this is good.
Size of memory doesnt bother me really - I made the move
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:33:23AM -0500, Michael Gass wrote:
Just installed 7.2-release in an old Pavilion 4455 (PII, 256M)
and it runs great. Csuped src and ports and rebuilt world and
generic kernel for 7.2-stable and that went well.
My question is why are the files in /etc in 7.2-stable
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Michael Gass wrote:
Just installed 7.2-release in an old Pavilion 4455 (PII, 256M)
and it runs great. Csuped src and ports and rebuilt world and
generic kernel for 7.2-stable and that went well.
My question is why are the files in /etc in 7.2-stable older
versions
Hello list.
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice diagram: http://www.pastebin.ca/1460089 Since it doesnt
show on
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:56 -, danallen46 wrote:
On 13 Jun 2009, at 5:42 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
On 6/13/09, Dan Allen danalle...@airwired.net wrote:
I have now proven that the recent post June 8th version of
/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
causes catastrophic data loss.
On 14 Jun 2009, at 10:38 AM, CmdLnKid wrote:
Is it possible that you have most likely been playing around with ZFS
before this and left some of the configurations of ZFS embedded in
your
drive and the loader is picking that up.
No, I have never used ZFS.
The drive is partitioned and the
* Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com [2009-06-14 18:17]:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice diagram:
On 14 Jun 2009, at 1:27 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
From one of your older emails, you mention you are using
ad0s2a as / and ad0s2b as swap, and then say that ad0s2c
is unused (I may have the ad0s2 part wrong). But ad0s2c
should be the entire slice (or partition depending on
the wording you are
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Dan Allen wrote:
On 14 Jun 2009, at 1:27 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
From one of your older emails, you mention you are using
ad0s2a as / and ad0s2b as swap, and then say that ad0s2c
is unused (I may have the ad0s2 part wrong). But ad0s2c
should be the entire slice (or
On 14 Jun 2009, at 5:08 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Dan Allen wrote:
# /dev/ad0s2:
8 partitions:
#size offsetfstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
a: 43591708 20971524.2BSD0 0 0
b: 20971520 swap
c: 456888600unused
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com wrote:
I just wanted to have an extra pair (or a dozen) of eyes look this
configuration over before I commit to it (tested it in VMWare just in
case, it works, so I am considering doing this on real hardware soon).
I drew a nice
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:16:52PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
I don't know for sure if it's the same on FreeBSD, but on Solaris, ZFS will
disable the onboard disk cache if the vdevs are not whole disks.
pjd@ has stated in the past that this doesn't apply to FreeBSD:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Emil Mikulic emiku...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:16:52PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
I don't know for sure if it's the same on FreeBSD, but on Solaris, ZFS
will
disable the onboard disk cache if the vdevs are not whole disks.
pjd@ has
23 matches
Mail list logo
