> Just out of curiosity I tried ruby port on two machines - fast one
> (1.6GHz Athlon with 1GB RAM) and small one (400MHz with 96MB RAM).
> Fast one has no problems with ruby, it builds and installs in few
> minutes. The slow one is another story, however.
There is definitely something in teh buil
On 14/09/2006 04:05, Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> I don't know why. I'm running DNS server on old Celeron 400Mhz with
>> 96MB RAM just fine. Why do you think you need Xeon dual core for that?
>
> Of course I don't, and won't.
>
> I was just replying to the guy that told me that I am using archaic
> h
On 9/14/06, Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know why. I'm running DNS server on old Celeron 400Mhz with
> 96MB RAM just fine. Why do you think you need Xeon dual core for that?
Of course I don't, and won't.
I was just replying to the guy that told me that I am using archaic
> I don't know why. I'm running DNS server on old Celeron 400Mhz with
> 96MB RAM just fine. Why do you think you need Xeon dual core for that?
Of course I don't, and won't.
I was just replying to the guy that told me that I am using archaic
hardware and that it makes building ruby slow.
I do use
On 14/09/2006 03:21, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> Hummm, I was looking at bsdstats... majority of registered hardware is
> pentium III.
>
> I like FreeBSD because of it's hability of running well on old
> hardware: why would I need a Xeon dual core to run a DNS server for 5
> clients?
I don't know why
> Old FreeBSD on old hardware is a recipe for such problems.
Hummm, I was looking at bsdstats... majority of registered hardware is
pentium III.
I like FreeBSD because of it's hability of running well on old
hardware: why would I need a Xeon dual core to run a DNS server for 5
clients?
Olivier
_
On 9/12/06, Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I am upgrading a few servers. I have noticed that on pentium III, it
takes a VERY long time to upgrade Ruby 1.8.
It blocks at some stage saying:
zlib.c:
mcc.
