off the top of my head (remembered from bumping into limits with flashboot), I think there are some restrictions imposed by ISA, and of course some small machines have limited RAM which this eats into.
On 2009/04/20 11:59, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > On 20 April 2009 ?. 11:38:19 Stuart Henderson wrote: > > there certainly are size restrictions on RAMDISK_CD. > > Sorry for stupid questions, but what those restrictions are and what is > the reason for them? It's not the disk space, obviously. And if > RAMDISK_CD kernel could not load into memory then this machine will not > be much usable using GENERIC one either; administrator of this system > will compile it's own kernels anyway to free some more space in RAM... > > May be I'm too far from reality in my house; yesterday it was still snow > falling in my window... :) Then I send my apologies to anyone who's > machine will not be usable after adding RAIDFrame into stock kernel. > > > On 2009-04-19, Vadim Zhukov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello all. > > > > > > Is there any particular reason to not have RAIDFrame built-in in > > > RAMDISK_CD kernels? I mean, are there any restrictions, except > > > kernel/ramdisk size, which are not the case with RAMDISK_CD, > > > obviously? > > > > > > Maybe I missed something digging through Google output containing a > > > lot of links to official FAQ and quotes from it. :(
