Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:46:31 +0300 From: Pavel Timofeev <timp87@gmail.com> To: "Pokala, Ravi" <rpokala@panasas.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quick question: sc(4) vs vt(4) Message-ID: <CAAoTqfs0wMcAeyUHpA1XPSfR_jKrhC9VXV0SoNKUKwBrQHdPbQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <D20CC2A1.143F43%rpokala@panasas.com> References: <D20CC2A1.143F43%rpokala@panasas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! The only problem I experienced with vt(4) is extremely slow work in default mode under some virtualization platforms, for example, Hyper-V. vt(4) can be switched to text mode to make things better though. 03.09.2015 1:14 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0= =B5=D0=BB=D1=8C "Pokala, Ravi" <rpokala@panasas.com> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0= =B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB: > Hi folks, > > vt(4) says: > > kern.vty > Set this value to `vt' or `sc' to override the default drive= r > used for the system console. By default, sc(4) is used on > com- > puters that boot from BIOS, and vt is used on computers that > boot > from UEFI. > > > Are there any known problems using vt(4) rather than sc(4) on systems > booting with BIOS? One of our folks noticed that sc(4) has a bunch of > dependencies, a bunch of which that are for obsolete hardware (AT > keyboards and their controllers, splash screens, etc), that vt(4) does no= t. > > Thanks, > > Ravi > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAAoTqfs0wMcAeyUHpA1XPSfR_jKrhC9VXV0SoNKUKwBrQHdPbQ>