On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 05:44:39PM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Hello. I have
>
> NO_SENDMAIL=true# do not build sendmail and related programs
>
> in my /etc/make.conf file. I use Postfix instead. I just built the world
> and sendmail was built anyway and installed right over t
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If that's what they say, I'd be inclined to believe them. Since I've
not
| encountered any fatal problems with the 2.x firmware, I can't suggest
| that upgrading would actually win you very much.
I'm not even sure the HPDA f
I recently started upgrading several computers from 3.4S to 4.0S. The first
one went off without a single problem, and is happily humming right next to
me. With that success behind me, I decided to upgrade an old Toshiba
Satellite Pro 2400CS notebook computer.
It has worked perfectly with 3.3 a
"Paul A. Howes" wrote:
>
> I recently started upgrading several computers from 3.4S to 4.0S. The first
> one went off without a single problem, and is happily humming right next to
> me. With that success behind me, I decided to upgrade an old Toshiba
> Satellite Pro 2400CS notebook computer.
>
Hi all,
Running 4.0-STABLE (though I had the same issue in 4.0-RELEASE). I've got
a 10 gig IDE Hard drive with two FAT32 paritions taking 2 gig and 6 gig,
and then a 2.4 gig FreeBSD partition.
/- 100 megs
/var - 100 megs
swap - 268 megs
/usr - 1800 megs
On bootup, I get the following:
>>
Booting above 8 Gb is not supported, due to BIOS problems. If you don't
believe that, trying booting Windows above 8 Gb... :-)
Alas, one developer had some interesting ideas on how to solve this
problem recently. There is _unsupported_ options to make this work, but
we can't activate them by defa
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the quick reply..
> Booting above 8 Gb is not supported, due to BIOS problems. If you don't
> believe that, trying booting Windows above 8 Gb... :-)
Understood - But why would it have worked with 3.4 and the *exact* same
configuration? (When I upgraded, I deleted the par
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 13:13:37 PDT, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> >You leave out "how well you want it to perform" as well. All other
> >things being equal, the PCI:SCSI adapters will give you better bang for
> >your buck.
>
> Out of curiosity, how would a PCI-RAID (SCSI) adapter compare with
> vani
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | If that's what they say, I'd be inclined to believe them. Since I've
> not
> | encountered any fatal problems with the 2.x firmware, I can't suggest
> | that upgrading would actually win you very much.
>
> I'm not
