Re: Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present by default?

To: "port-hp300%netbsd.org@localhost" <port-hp300%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present by default?
From: Chris Hanson <cmhanson%eschatologist.net@localhost>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 21:48:20 -0800

On Dec 8, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Chris Hanson <cmhanson%eschatologist.net@localhost> wrote:
> 
>  -- whose system panic’d after starting X
>  -- I just pressed the middle mouse button in the big black expanse of the root window

This seems to be much better with 72MB of RAM than 16MB.

Alas, someone snatched up the RAM that I was going to put in this system, so I can only put 72MB in each of my 9000/425t and 9000/433s, not 128MB in each. If anyone has a lead on more RAM compatible with the 400 series and the 9000/380, I’d appreciate it.

  -- Chris

References:
- Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present by default?
  - From: Chris Hanson

Prev by Date: Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present by default?
Next by Date: Re: Console on 9000/425t with A1659A graphics
Previous by Thread: Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present by default?
Next by Thread: Re: Should kernfs, procfs, ptyfs, and tmpfs for /var/shm be present bydefault?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index