Subject: Re: Installing NetBSD 2.0 - second harddisk affected?
To: Michael Bramley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Alex Pelts <email@example.com>
Date: 03/29/2005 12:49:09
I can't tell you about corruptions because I did not experience them. If
you are worried about stability of 2.0 you can use 1.6.2 which has been
very stable for me. I think it was even better than 1.6.1.
You do not need latest version if you need a stable one. 1.6.2 restore
cd is also available.
If you want to operate qube remotely, connect serial cable to another
computer you can access from outside. This way you can always boot
Michael Bramley wrote:
> On 29/3/05 9:47 pm, "Alex Pelts" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>I do not believe second hard disk would be affected. Only first device
>>is mentioned in the install scripts. I would assume it is pretty safe to
>>leave second HD plugged in.
>>As far as OS version goes, you can use 1.6.2 which has been very good to
>>me. I do not experience any corruptions or lockups with any file size.
>>Of course people reported increased performance with 2.0 but with data
>>corruption it does not help much.
> I've been reading about NetBSD 2 in the mail list for a few weeks now and am
> I bit worried that my attempts next month to resurrect my Qube 2 are going
> to flop. It seems there are a few problems?
> I've not tried it yet on my machine but I want to use my Qube 2 as an
> Internet file server and BBS (Wired & Hotline S-HXD) for NeXT, SGI & BeOS.
> The file corruption issue you speak of, what exactly are we talking about
> here?, do you mean large file transfers over TCP/IP are affected or are you
> talking about some other file sharing protocol being affected?.
> Please can somebody clarify what file corruptions issues are being
> experienced?. I borked 1.6.1 on my Qube when I tried to remotely update the
> kernel to V2 (from 5000 miles away Doh!), I'm home again next month and can
> fix the Qube up again however it worries my that maybe it's going to still
> cause me a load of hassle. I wanted to use the Qube as they're cheap and
> quiet to run and maintain, but this project is not working out thus far.
> Mick Bramley