Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:43:06 +0200 From: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: pxeboot binary is too big on FreeBSD (>640KBytes) Message-ID: <9ADBF2DA-0D00-40C0-A2CA-AFBCA7E5F3A4@me.com> In-Reply-To: <16051.1645463921@kaos.jnpr.net> References: <6984fd5d-ae58-11a4-0d21-a8695b0c77f7@selasky.org> <02586EFB-0BB5-46BF-9EE5-28623D20EFD3@me.com> <16051.1645463921@kaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 21. Feb 2022, at 19:18, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> wrote: >=20 > Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> wrote: >>> Why should pxeboot have ZFS support? >>=20 >> Well, the feature X can be helpful for recovery purposes. The root >> cause is not the feature X itself, but the size limit. And the >> unfortunate fact, the size limit is not fixed, but depends on the >> system. Therefore there are two options - either to fix the size = limit >> or drop option X from default build =E2=80=94 at least till the size = limit is >> fixed (or support for BIOS will be dropped). >=20 > Or just build separate variants. > As Bjoern said Lua is probably the straw breaking the cammel's back > but I think it reasonable to assume that a system that has the = resources > to support ZFS does not have an ancient BIOS ? >=20 > Thus a non-ZFS version could work for older systems > while those without limitation can use the kitchen-sink version. It is not even about =E2=80=9Cancient=E2=80=9D BIOS, the problem is, PXE = stack does also need resources and it is easier to consume low memory = (just as loader does).=20 rgds, toomas=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9ADBF2DA-0D00-40C0-A2CA-AFBCA7E5F3A4>