On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 20:55, Terry Lambert wrote:
> walt wrote:
> > Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:08:40PM -0500, Eric Jones wrote:
> > >>Is there any reason, on newer motherboards, to need the MAXMEM option?
> > >
> > > I d
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 19:08, walt wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:08:40PM -0500, Eric Jones wrote:
>
> >>Is there any reason, on newer motherboards, to need the MAXMEM option?
>
> > I don't know. I've always used MAXMEM.
alloc kernel virtual memory
With MAXMEM unspecified, no problems. Is there any reason, on newer
motherboards, to need the MAXMEM option? Without it specified, I see
all 256M in the system. I originally had it for my old MB (a K6-2) that
wouldn't work without it (4-CURRENT days). My new MB doesn't need it.
Just my $0.02
--
Eric Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
s like its working, according to the dmesg,
where any attempt to load it before panicked with pmap_mapdev: Couldn't
alloc kernel virtual memory.
Is there any reason, on newer motherboards, to need the MAXMEM option?
Without it specified, I see all 256M in the system. I originally had it
speci
guration that'll be installed across a large base. If anything
will drive the commercialization of FreeBSD it's manageability
enhancements.
So, when the framework, Frame-work! Frame-work! is being
considered, please keep in mind the pre-configured one disk network
install. In the
Folks,
In looking through the sysinstall source, I noticed that the man
page states
that "This product is currently at the end of its life cycle and will
eventually
be replaced."
Is there any truth to this? Apparently this verbiage was introduced in
rev 1.20 because the previous text claime
