Re: Depreciate and remove gbde

Yonas Yanfa wrote: > Hi, > > It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely > flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover, > geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums. & global community uses DOS-FS more, & mentions MS more

Re: AHC - 29160 interrupts not functioning?

Michael Butler wrote: > Has anyone tested the ahc driver on v10 or later? There are a few older boxes (still good enough for doing e-mail, light web browsing, basic office stuff etc.) sitting around here that have their local file systems on disks connected to 19160 or 29160 cards: FreeBSD

Re: Depreciate and remove gbde

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:29:36 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > Yonas Yanfa wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely > > flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover, > > geli is mentioned a lot

Depreciate and remove gbde

Hi, It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover, geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums. gbde's man page explicitly says that gbde is experimental and should be considered

AHC - 29160 interrupts not functioning?

Has anyone tested the ahc driver on v10 or later? The last version I can successfully run is 9.x as anything later, presumably because of the changes in the timer code, causes disk transactions to be seen as "Timedout SCBs already complete. Interrupts may not be functioning." when given any

Re: Depreciate and remove gbde

On 2015-10-18 06:36, Yonas Yanfa wrote: > Hi, > > It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely > flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover, > geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums. > > gbde's man page explicitly says

Re: Depreciate and remove gbde

In message <5623846b.6000...@freebsd.org>, Allan Jude writes: >While I think it isn't a bad idea to put GELI first in the handbook, I >don't see any reason to remove gdbe. I don't see any reason to remove gbde, and would consider any such suggestion somewhat suspect, given the set of