I had increased the font size (ctrl - +) for the first pic ... should be fixed now.
Ubuntu 9.0.4 (pics)
- Thread starter NJC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: NJC
I guess multi-boot configs are so yesterday ...
I need to investigate VM's. ...........
That may be true if host OS and guest OS both have small footprint and don't consume many system resources. Otherwise, multi-boot configuration are still currently viable.
That said, I downloaded latest Solaris 10 release (10/08) a few months back and been waiting for OEM to release disk drive I want to install it on.
I also downloaded Sun Virtual Box last week and have been playing with it in a Windows Vista SP1 environment with 2 Gb memory installed.
Based on that experience, I've determined the following:
Perhaps if I added more memory to system, latter item would work but I feel the better option is to wait for Seagate to release their new disk drive.
I guess multi-boot configs are so yesterday ...
That may be true if host OS and guest OS both have small footprint and don't consume many system resources. Otherwise, multi-boot configuration are still currently viable.
That said, I downloaded latest Solaris 10 release (10/08) a few months back and been waiting for OEM to release disk drive I want to install it on.
I also downloaded Sun Virtual Box last week and have been playing with it in a Windows Vista SP1 environment with 2 Gb memory installed.
Based on that experience, I've determined the following:
- VB works OK in Solaris 10u6 UFS environment
- VB doesn't work in Solaris 10u6 ZFS root environment
Perhaps if I added more memory to system, latter item would work but I feel the better option is to wait for Seagate to release their new disk drive.
Originally Posted By: Iain
[*]VB doesn't work in Solaris 10u6 ZFS root environment
Doesn't ZFS require *massive* amounts of RAM?
[*]VB doesn't work in Solaris 10u6 ZFS root environment
Doesn't ZFS require *massive* amounts of RAM?
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Iain
[*]VB doesn't work in Solaris 10u6 ZFS root environment
Doesn't ZFS require *massive* amounts of RAM?
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
Originally Posted By: Iain
[*]VB doesn't work in Solaris 10u6 ZFS root environment
Doesn't ZFS require *massive* amounts of RAM?
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
Originally Posted By: Iain
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
If ZFS needs 768MB (I've read 1GB), then you still need several hundred MB for the rest of the OS, no?
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
If ZFS needs 768MB (I've read 1GB), then you still need several hundred MB for the rest of the OS, no?
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Iain
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
If ZFS needs 768MB (I've read 1GB), then you still need several hundred MB for the rest of the OS, no?
Aye!
The point I'm attempting to make here, and perhaps it's not clear, is:
... instead of have two resource hogs sitting on top of each other on a system designed for either/or. But not both at the same time.
Originally Posted By: Iain
Yes. Sun recommend minimum of 350 Mb for UFS and minimum of 768 Mb for ZFS environments.
I had VB set for 768 Mb system memory and 128 Mb video memory. UFS ran OK, but ZFS consistently failed.
If ZFS needs 768MB (I've read 1GB), then you still need several hundred MB for the rest of the OS, no?
Aye!
The point I'm attempting to make here, and perhaps it's not clear, is:
- Dedicate all system resources to Vista exclusively
- Or dedicate all system resources to Solaris exclusively
... instead of have two resource hogs sitting on top of each other on a system designed for either/or. But not both at the same time.
- Status
Similar threads
