Date: 24 Aug 2009 18:06:48 -0400 From: Luke S Crawford <lsc@prgmr.com> To: Tim Judd <tajudd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: finishing up the xen port - would funding help? Message-ID: <m3skfgamtj.fsf@luke.xen.prgmr.com> In-Reply-To: <ade45ae90908241040l313c59cfw3c2561901833d209@mail.gmail.com> References: <d763ac660908220617h2d2a794ajb3a401d7402a4324@mail.gmail.com> <14889119.2221251120185215.JavaMail.root@zim.freshx.de> <d763ac660908240659w7b1e2575g9ee4152e6b58df56@mail.gmail.com> <ade45ae90908241040l313c59cfw3c2561901833d209@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Judd <tajudd@gmail.com> writes: > <snip> > > > I've kept quiet, but I wonder why we're feeding penguins for dom0, > when netbsd has dom0 support since 4.0 I started out using NetBSD3 xen2 - it worked beautifully but didn't support x86_64 or i386PAE, so I switched to a Linux Dom0 so I could use servers with more than 4GiB ram. With NetBSD 5 being out, those problems are now solved. It's just inertia at this point; I'm considering NetBSD for my next dom0. But yeah, not supporting more than 4GiB ram was a big blocker. Inertia from that is probably why NetBSD Dom0s are not so popular right now. -- Luke S. Crawford http://prgmr.com/xen/ - Hosting for the technically adept http://nostarch.com/xen.htm - We don't assume you are stupid.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3skfgamtj.fsf>