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  [2009-04-20 11:38]:

quoted text
> 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  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, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam