Oliver Fromme wrote:
Gergo Szakal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> If you can prove that the problem is caused by the machine itself,
> please do it (I don't consider statements like 'It's old cr*p' as
> proof), else let's wait for someone else who dug into the problematic
> code. Sorry for being a bit harsh, no offense meant, but somehow the
> countless appearance of sentences like 'get a new box' frustrates me. :-(
Personally I consider a Pentium-II-450 perfectly standard
hardware. In fact, one of my main servers is a Dual-
Celeron-466 (sligtly less standard because Celerons weren't
supposed to be used in SMP systems). It's more than fast
enough to run DNS, MTA and Apache for several domains, SSH
shell server for a dozen users (each in his own jail) and a
few other things.
An OS that aims to support i386 hardware should have no
problems whatsoever running on a Pentium-II. It caused
quite a big bikeshed when FreeBSD stopped supporting the
80386, and later when it stopped supporting processors
without FPU (such as the 486SX). (I think DragonFly still
supports the 80386, but I'm not sure.)
By the way, my main server at home was a Pentium-75 until
recently. I replaced it with a low-power EPIA board (with
VIA C3 processor), mainly because the Pentium-75 couldn't
be upgraded beyond 128 MB RAM, and I needed more RAM
because the Squid proxy caused paging sometimes. Other
than that, the Pentium-75 was perfect and even ran fanless
(with a huge self-made heatsink) at ~ 30 °C.
Best regards
Oliver
Nothing wrong with 'run what you got'...
But... All our 1970's vintage S-100 gear save 3 8" FDD was shipped off this
summer to a collector, the 6' magnalium-alloy US Navy surplus rack, power
supplies, Sperry ISS-80 'absolute' air filter system, all went to the metals
recycler.
For production we 'downgraded' all our 1U rackmounts save one to VIA C3 from 1.X
GHz Celerons (FreeBSD 4.11) to help stay within the Data Centre UPS power budget
for our rack, and upgraded the 2U rackmounts to Tyan MB with Intel Core-D and
FreeBSD 6.2/AMD-64 OS.
But I *still* say it is 'not kind' to the DFLY project - already struggling with
scant resources and tough goals, to distract or sidetrack it even a little bit
to chase aging hardware flakiness - especially when there are other usable OS
that can make good use of that hardware w/o any work.
Let's keep out of the core DFLY team's way so they can get the basics done,
demo'ed, and publicized FIRST.
IF THEN more folks take an interest and come on-board, I am sure anything worthy
of support can find it from a larger pool of contributors.
The 'clear and present danger' is loss of momentum. Note the gradual reduction
in posts here to the d.kernel list, for example.
Fear Fabius, not Scipio.
Bill
