«608 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001


Ninja Rope posted:

If you run smbd with all the debugging flags enabled, does it print anything interesting about that file? It's probably a lack of support for Win8 in Samba, though.

Edit: smbd -i -S -d 9999 ?

I've filled up gigabytes of logs. Nothing looks like an error.

In fact, I think the logs for Windows 8 connecting are *identical* to the logs for Windows 7 connecting. The difference is that when Windows 8 connects, files get truncated to zero bytes, Windows 8 logs "the parameter is incorrect" for the files, etc.
The only files it errors on are things related to Internet Explorer (nothing else);

\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\IECompatCache\Low
\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\PrivacIE\Low
\Favorites\Links
\Favorites
etc...

If Internet Explorer is disabled and those files removed from the local profile, the Roaming profile syncs up just fine.

Nostrum posted:

Is the CIFS/Samba support really as bad as people say it is? All of my computers are Windows and only 1 of them has Pro, so NFS wouldn't do me much good. Does the NAS4Free SMB implementation work any better?

I haven't see any performance issues with Samba - except when using third-party tools such as TeraCopy.

FreeBSD 9.1, Samba 3.6, gigabit Ethernet:
Send from Samba: 110MB/sec
Receive to Samba: 100MB/sec
(using the native Explorer window to drag a file from a local system to the network share)

My issue with Samba has always been trying to configure it for every single version of Windows. It's supposed to be a "Windows compatible" protocol. It required changes (smb.conf and Windows registry) when XP came out. When Vista came out it required more changes. When Windows 7 came out it required more changes. And now with Windows 8, I still can't find any info on what to change to make it work. It's the least Windows-compatible thing I've used, especially since it was designed from the ground-up to be Windows-comaptible.

When it works, it seems to perform fine. Transferring a ton of small files with logging kicked way up will murder performance, though.

I went with FreeBSD over Solaris/OpenIndiana due to driver and software support.

Ninja Rope
Oct 22, 2005

Wee.


It's honestly a miracle it works at all given the lack of information they had when the project started. Not that it doesn't make your situation any less frustrating of course.

evol262
Nov 30, 2010
#!/usr/bin/perl

Xenomorph posted:

My issue with Samba has always been trying to configure it for every single version of Windows. It's supposed to be a "Windows compatible" protocol. It required changes (smb.conf and Windows registry) when XP came out. When Vista came out it required more changes. When Windows 7 came out it required more changes. And now with Windows 8, I still can't find any info on what to change to make it work. It's the least Windows-compatible thing I've used, especially since it was designed from the ground-up to be Windows-comaptible.

When it works, it seems to perform fine. Transferring a ton of small files with logging kicked way up will murder performance, though.

I went with FreeBSD over Solaris/OpenIndiana due to driver and software support.
I'm guessing some parameter in IE's profile is getting truncated. It's obnoxious, but have you tried Samba4? Since MS worked directly with the Samba people (enough that Samba4 can be a peer DC with 2k8R2 and probably 2012), it may just resolve it.

Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001


evol262 posted:

I'm guessing some parameter in IE's profile is getting truncated. It's obnoxious, but have you tried Samba4? Since MS worked directly with the Samba people (enough that Samba4 can be a peer DC with 2k8R2 and probably 2012), it may just resolve it.

I guess I can do more testing.

When installing Samba 3.x, it seems to just be two parts (Samba & Winbind). When installing Samba 4, it tries to be a whole Domain Controller. DNS server components, etc. I just want the file server part.

During testing, the Samba 4 installer was all kinds of busted on Ubuntu. I'll test it again with FreeBSD in a VM.

wheez the roux
Aug 2, 2004
THEY SHOULD'VE GIVEN IT TO LYNCH

Death to the Seahawks. Death to Seahawks posters.

How good of a NAS box is this? Worth it?

http://www.buy.com/prod/buffalo-lin.../233095809.html

LastCaress
May 8, 2004

bonobo


Aynone have a Netgear Ultra?

I'm having a problem with expansion. I created the system a while ago and have been updating it. I got to 6 * 2 tb disks and everything was fine. Now I started adding 3tb drives, replacing the 2tb drives and have come up with "expansion failed" errors. (It has 3*2tb drives and 3*3tb drives and has 8851 GB (95%) of 9250 GB used).

From what I understand there's a limitation where you can only expand the system 8tb, has anyone encountered this? The solutions are reset to factory defaults (impossible for me because I can't backup these 8tb of data anywhere) and do an offline expansion but I'm affraid of that (not really user friendly, don't know if it's safe and haven't found clear instructions).

Thanks.

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002



My boss has a buffalo, he loves it and its kind of old at this point. That looks fine. Not sure how it is past file/print serving though.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





So, has anyone ever run across a file in ZFS that can't be deleted?

Background info on the setup: Nexenta 3.1.3.5 running on top of ESXi 5.0, with drive controllers passed directly to Nexenta. tank is a raidz2 on a stack of 1.5TB SATA drives. Some useless .AppleDouble file apparently got mangled, setting the following error:

code:
Volume: tank
=============================================================================
  pool: tank
 state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
        corruption.  Applications may be affected.
action: Restore the file in question if possible.  Otherwise restore the
        entire pool from backup.
   see: [url]http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A[/url]
 scan: scrub in progress since Sun Dec  9 03:00:05 2012
    687G scanned out of 6.45T at 9.93M/s, 169h32m to go
    0 repaired, 10.40% done
config:

        NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
        tank        ONLINE       0     0     2
          raidz2-0  ONLINE       0     0     2
            c2t0d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            c2t3d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            c2t2d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            c2t1d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            c2t4d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            c2t5d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
        cache
          c3t3d0    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files:

        /volumes/tank/lol/fake/path/.AppleDouble/dickbutt.png
It's the only file that has any corruption, and being an .AppleDouble piece of shit, I couldn't care less about its existence. However, if I ever try to delete it (even from the console of the Nexenta box itself), it spins for a few seconds and then the Nexenta box hardlocks / reboots. I haven't yet been able to get a good enough look at the console before it reboots to figure out what it's spitting up but I think it's some form of segfault / kernel panic / whatever the shit goes for a BSoD in Solaris-land.

Ninja Rope
Oct 22, 2005

Wee.


IOwnCalculus posted:

I haven't yet been able to get a good enough look at the console before it reboots to figure out what it's spitting up but I think it's some form of segfault / kernel panic / whatever the shit goes for a BSoD in Solaris-land.

I think there was a bug like this recently found in FreeBSD believed to also be in Solaris. See here.

The long and short of it is that old versions could write corrupt metadata that caused a panic on delete. The fix was to backup all of the data and re-create the pool.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





That sounds a lot like it. I may just live with it for the time being since this is literally the only file with the problem (so far), and the amount of space it takes up is completely negligible.

I've got everything on it backed up but it does take a long, long time to restore over the internet...done that once already

Ninja Rope
Oct 22, 2005

Wee.


IOwnCalculus posted:

That sounds a lot like it. I may just live with it for the time being since this is literally the only file with the problem (so far), and the amount of space it takes up is completely negligible.

I've got everything on it backed up but it does take a long, long time to restore over the internet...done that once already

Oh, sorry I wasn't clear. Apparently you can make a backup from the data as reading it won't cause an error. You just need a temporary location for the data while you destroy and re-create the array.

Of course if you don't have another array with at least that much free space that doesn't help you. Maybe you can unmount the drives and correct the issue with a hex editor, if you're feeling brave.

Pudgygiant
Apr 8, 2004

Garnet and black? More like gold and blue or whatever the fuck colors these are

Any recommendations for a UPnP/DLNA server for a readynas? When ReadyDLNA works it's just fine but it seems like once a week the service randomly stops and won't come back without a reboot.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





Ninja Rope posted:

Oh, sorry I wasn't clear. Apparently you can make a backup from the data as reading it won't cause an error. You just need a temporary location for the data while you destroy and re-create the array.

Of course if you don't have another array with at least that much free space that doesn't help you. Maybe you can unmount the drives and correct the issue with a hex editor, if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, that's just it, I don't have anything else with ~5TB of space to do a local backup to, and this isn't worth the time it takes to pull from my remote backups. Like I said, the file itself is worthless .AppleDouble shit.

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

Fun Shoe

I know some people here tried Flexraid back in beta last year and it was pretty rough so I figured I would chime in with a more recent report. I ran out of room on my old Synology unit and the 1512+ was incredibly expensive so I just said fuck it and built a little NAS mid-tower. I didn't want to deal with ZFS or mdadm at home so I gave a Windows box a shot for a change. My first choice was Unraid but their website is vague and finding general info on it sucks so I checked out Flexraid instead.

I've got a 12TB setup, 3 data drives and one parity disk. I've found the web interface to be fairly decent, performance has been good and no show stopping bugs or other issues. He could've made the exclusion process for small files with parity a bit easier but I'm used to dealing with regex so I didn't care. I simulated a disk failure and was able to restore 900GB of video files from parity without issues. If you lose a parity disk and a data drive at the same time then you're left with native files for the rest of the array which is what attracted me to it. The scheduling and notification systems work fine, I wish the success reports would pass along the smart info though. Not much to say about storage pooling, it works well and no permissions issues.

All in all not bad for $50-60 for a home array. I wouldn't use it at the office or something but it's great for "it just works" shit at home where you don't want much complexity.

PitViper
May 25, 2003

Welcome and thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart!
I love you!


How is the ZFS-on-Linux port? I see there's the FUSE project, as well as the native kernel port. WOndering if there's benefits or drawbacks to either in particular. My old box-of-random-drives finally kicked the bucket, so I'll be rebuilding things properly next week when the new hardware shows up.

Froist
Jun 6, 2004



PitViper posted:

How is the ZFS-on-Linux port? I see there's the FUSE project, as well as the native kernel port. WOndering if there's benefits or drawbacks to either in particular. My old box-of-random-drives finally kicked the bucket, so I'll be rebuilding things properly next week when the new hardware shows up.

I've been using it on Ubuntu for about 6 months and not had a single problem. I guess the real test is how it performs when something goes wrong, but unfortunately (or luckily!) I can't attest to that. I did try out the FUSE version at first and performance was pretty poor, so switched to the kernel version and it blew FUSE out of the water.

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga


Nap Ghost

ZFS on linux works fine now. And a FUSE implementation is always going to be slower than something in kernel.

poverty goat
Feb 15, 2004




I posted this in the quick question thread and they told me to post it over here since I guess it's not such a quick question:

I posted itt a few weeks ago that my mom, the family historian, put all of her priceless geneological information and xxxbox sized scans of ancient family photos onto a single 500gb external drive, which has died. They're in the process of paying out the ass to get the data recovered (thankfully there's nothing to indicate mechanical problems- just the drive doesn't want to talk to the rest of the computer except in 2-3 minute bursts at random intervals).

In the interest of making sure this doesn't happen again, I'd like to get her set up with proper backups with some redundancy on the cheap; ideally 1-1.5tb of raid1. I've looked into NAS but that seems a bit complicated and excessive; online backup services aren't terribly economical at that level either. Now I'm wondering if it would be a terrible idea just to put the array in her computer, but some googlery has raised additional questions:

1.) She has onboard RAID via AMD SB710, but google tells me that I can't expect the array to be portable to some future motherboard's RAID controller if (when) the motherboard fails at the worst possible time. Is this accurate even for RAID1? Because that's just dumb.
2.) The same google result says that using Windows 7's software mirroring is the best idea ever, since it's guaranteed to be portable to whatever next system she winds up with as long as it's running windows. Is this a bad idea? It seems to me like it should be a bad idea.
3.) Mom absolutely can't be trusted not to fuck everything up. Is there any particular backup software that can be configured to send regular status updates to me and/or my dad, either confirming that backups are happening as scheduled or raising the sirens when the drive is full or something is failing?
4.) Should I abandon this plan and try something else?

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002


gggiiimmmppp posted:

I posted this in the quick question thread and they told me to post it over here since I guess it's not such a quick question:

I posted itt a few weeks ago that my mom, the family historian, put all of her priceless geneological information and xxxbox sized scans of ancient family photos onto a single 500gb external drive, which has died. They're in the process of paying out the ass to get the data recovered (thankfully there's nothing to indicate mechanical problems- just the drive doesn't want to talk to the rest of the computer except in 2-3 minute bursts at random intervals).

In the interest of making sure this doesn't happen again, I'd like to get her set up with proper backups with some redundancy on the cheap; ideally 1-1.5tb of raid1. I've looked into NAS but that seems a bit complicated and excessive; online backup services aren't terribly economical at that level either. Now I'm wondering if it would be a terrible idea just to put the array in her computer, but some googlery has raised additional questions:

1.) She has onboard RAID via AMD SB710, but google tells me that I can't expect the array to be portable to some future motherboard's RAID controller if (when) the motherboard fails at the worst possible time. Is this accurate even for RAID1? Because that's just dumb.
2.) The same google result says that using Windows 7's software mirroring is the best idea ever, since it's guaranteed to be portable to whatever next system she winds up with as long as it's running windows. Is this a bad idea? It seems to me like it should be a bad idea.
3.) Mom absolutely can't be trusted not to fuck everything up. Is there any particular backup software that can be configured to send regular status updates to me and/or my dad, either confirming that backups are happening as scheduled or raising the sirens when the drive is full or something is failing?
4.) Should I abandon this plan and try something else?

RAID is not backup. Buy her a few years of Crashplan and be done with it.

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga


Nap Ghost

Just use crashplan

poverty goat
Feb 15, 2004




LmaoTheKid posted:

RAID is not backup. Buy her a few years of Crashplan and be done with it.

I was going to set her up with automatic backups to the RAID array, not just to live out of it. Anyway yeah crashplan was below the fold when I was price checking a while ago but its pretty reasonably priced . That might be a winner.

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002


gggiiimmmppp posted:

I was going to set her up with automatic backups to the RAID array, not just to live out of it. Anyway yeah crashplan was below the fold when I was price checking a while ago but its pretty reasonably priced . That might be a winner.

It's still not backup. In an ideal world, you'd be doing Crashplan backups from the RAID, but honestly, just cut out the middleman and go direct to CP.

poverty goat
Feb 15, 2004




LmaoTheKid posted:

It's still not backup. In an ideal world, you'd be doing Crashplan backups from the RAID, but honestly, just cut out the middleman and go direct to CP.

Yeah, I just talked to my sister and they're getting 2 years of the family plan from us for christmas.

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003



gggiiimmmppp posted:

I was going to set her up with automatic backups to the RAID array
And then they get burglarized. Oops. Or lightning destroys the equipment. Ooops! Or she accidentally deletes files. See where we're going? Online backups are your only reasonable option right now.

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga


Nap Ghost

Speaking of crashplan, I finally got my it set up so all my computers are backed up to my nas, which is then backed up to cp.

Only 3-4 weeks left until the initial backup completes

movax
Aug 30, 2008



gggiiimmmppp posted:

Yeah, I just talked to my sister and they're getting 2 years of the family plan from us for christmas.

If you mom's connection sucks, CrashPlan also can send you a drive to load up with data for them import to complete the initial seed faster.

e: ^^ I couldn't get that to work...don't the files all end up in encrypted archives on the NAS box? That was my idea as well, buy one instances of Crashplan+ for the NAS to save money, but alas, does not work that way.

evensevenone
May 12, 2001
Glass is a solid.

gggiiimmmppp posted:

I was going to set her up with automatic backups to the RAID array, not just to live out of it. Anyway yeah crashplan was below the fold when I was price checking a while ago but its pretty reasonably priced . That might be a winner.

LmaoTheKid posted:

It's still not backup. In an ideal world, you'd be doing Crashplan backups from the RAID, but honestly, just cut out the middleman and go direct to CP.

Uh, if you are backing up and the storage infrastructure happens to be on RAID, it's still backup. If you're just replacing your day-to-day storage with RAID, that's when the RAID-isn't-backup mantra applies.

It's not offsite backup, which Crashplan is, but offsite backup via the internet isn't always possible for everyone. Having local backup is also nice when you actually go to recover from it and it doesn't take 3 weeks.

poverty goat
Feb 15, 2004




gggiiimmmppp posted:

1.) She has onboard RAID via AMD SB710, but google tells me that I can't expect the array to be portable to some future motherboard's RAID controller if (when) the motherboard fails at the worst possible time. Is this accurate even for RAID1? Because that's just dumb.
2.) The same google result says that using Windows 7's software mirroring is the best idea ever, since it's guaranteed to be portable to whatever next system she winds up with as long as it's running windows. Is this a bad idea? It seems to me like it should be a bad idea.

I'd still be interested in the answers to these questions for posterity now that I've asked them, since google insists that the answer to each question is both yes and no.

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002


evensevenone posted:

Uh, if you are backing up and the storage infrastructure happens to be on RAID, it's still backup. If you're just replacing your day-to-day storage with RAID, that's when the RAID-isn't-backup mantra applies.

It's not offsite backup, which Crashplan is, but offsite backup via the internet isn't always possible for everyone. Having local backup is also nice when you actually go to recover from it and it doesn't take 3 weeks.

A raid Array in the same machine to me, whether its dedicated to backups or not is not backup IMO. You're still in single point of failure in terms of a power surge or a virus outbreak or malware or whatever.

As I stated, Ideally you'd have a NAS/raid machine doing backups locally on the network and then that backs up offsite. However when it comes to parents, do you really want to be CJing their backups when you can just buy a few years of Crashplan and either do the Hard Drive seed as suggested by movax, or just leave the thing on for a week straight for the backup to go to the ?

gggiiimmmppp posted:

I'd still be interested in the answers to these questions for posterity now that I've asked them, since google insists that the answer to each question is both yes and no.
1) Yes, those drives will not be portable, that's the nature of hardware RAID.
2) I can't speak to windows software RAID but I use it on my home NAS with mdadm and being able to mount the drives using a live CD has saved my butt often. Windows Soft RAID is fine in this application IMO if that's the way you're going to go.

Matt Zerella fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Dec 13, 2012

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga


Nap Ghost

movax posted:

e: ^^ I couldn't get that to work...don't the files all end up in encrypted archives on the NAS box? That was my idea as well, buy one instances of Crashplan+ for the NAS to save money, but alas, does not work that way.

I just followed these instructions: http://support.crashplan.com/doku.p...headless_client and it looks like it's working. And I haven't noticed any unusual spike in how much space is used on my NAS so it doesn't look like I have a lot of extra local copies.

poverty goat
Feb 15, 2004




LmaoTheKid posted:

1) Yes, those drives will not be portable, that's the nature of hardware RAID.
Is there a good reason for this in the case of RAID1? I could understand that raid0/5 are a bit more complicated but it seems like the quickest way to mirror data across two drives would be to just write straight through transparently to both of them as though there was no RAID controller in between in the first place.

titaniumone
Jun 10, 2001



gggiiimmmppp posted:

1.) She has onboard RAID via AMD SB710, but google tells me that I can't expect the array to be portable to some future motherboard's RAID controller if (when) the motherboard fails at the worst possible time. Is this accurate even for RAID1? Because that's just dumb.
2.) The same google result says that using Windows 7's software mirroring is the best idea ever, since it's guaranteed to be portable to whatever next system she winds up with as long as it's running windows. Is this a bad idea? It seems to me like it should be a bad idea.

Onboard RAID is really terrible and not only fails to be portable to other controllers but usually won't even work with an identical replacement of the same motherboard. If the controller doesn't have some information available for the array, it will claim there is no array, and to initialize the array it will force you to wipe the drives. With RAID1 depending on the chipset you may be able to use the drives independently, or you may not. I don't think it's worth the effort to find out.

Every onboard RAID I've ever used has been like this, and there is no technical reason other than sloppy implementation. It is dumb indeed.


Windows software mirroring is really just taking every read and write command and echoing it to both drives. It is actually a decent solution overall because if one drive fails catastrophically the other drive, by itself, is still a perfectly functioning copy. You just remove the failed drive and then boot from the single drive as if you'd never had a mirror in the first place. (Maybe with a few warnings from Windows bitching about booting or whatever, but for the most part, you're good to go).

movax
Aug 30, 2008



titaniumone posted:

Onboard RAID is really terrible and not only fails to be portable to other controllers but usually won't even work with an identical replacement of the same motherboard. If the controller doesn't have some information available for the array, it will claim there is no array, and to initialize the array it will force you to wipe the drives. With RAID1 depending on the chipset you may be able to use the drives independently, or you may not. I don't think it's worth the effort to find out.

Every onboard RAID I've ever used has been like this, and there is no technical reason other than sloppy implementation. It is dumb indeed.


Windows software mirroring is really just taking every read and write command and echoing it to both drives. It is actually a decent solution overall because if one drive fails catastrophically the other drive, by itself, is still a perfectly functioning copy. You just remove the failed drive and then boot from the single drive as if you'd never had a mirror in the first place. (Maybe with a few warnings from Windows bitching about booting or whatever, but for the most part, you're good to go).

I believe that modern Intel PCH RAID, that RAID 1 drives can survive being read independently without any problems. I know that I was able to turn a single drive into a RAID 1 with another drive on-line with the 6-series PCH. I should test this with some spare drives laying around.

Don Lapre
Mar 28, 2001

If you're having problems you're either holding the phone wrong or you have tiny girl hands.


movax posted:

I believe that modern Intel PCH RAID, that RAID 1 drives can survive being read independently without any problems. I know that I was able to turn a single drive into a RAID 1 with another drive on-line with the 6-series PCH. I should test this with some spare drives laying around.

Yea, ive seen tons of the old dell dimensions that came with factory raid1 and the drives always work independently.

Comradephate
Feb 28, 2009



College Slice

On the note of portability, RAID-Z and mdadm will both work on any system with the appropriate packages/drivers, correct?

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002


Comradephate posted:

On the note of portability, RAID-Z and mdadm will both work on any system with the appropriate packages/drivers, correct?

RAIDZ can be weird because of how FBSD partitions the drives. I've had trouble importing arrays with ZFSonLinux because they use GPT and they freak out when you import the array. I don't know if this is still an issue but I ran into it about a year ago.

Chuu
Sep 11, 2004



Grimey Drawer

I was trying to find a Mini-ITX motherboard that supports ECC memory with 6 SATA ports to serve as the base for a 6 drive Raid-Z2 FreeNAS system. I could not find any. Tons of consumer ITX motherboards with 6x slots but don't support ECC. A couple Xeon ITX boards that support ECC but only 4x SATA on board. Am I missing something or does this product not exist?

Delta-Wye
Sep 29, 2005

Represent!

I ran into the same thing, and best I could do was five SATA ports (which was enough for me). You may want to consider getting something with everything else you want plus pci express, and getting a SATA card for the express slot with a couple additional ports. A non-raid SATA card is pretty cheap, and there are plenty that are supported by freebsd.

yomisei
Mar 18, 2011


Chuu posted:

I was trying to find a Mini-ITX motherboard that supports ECC memory with 6 SATA ports to serve as the base for a 6 drive Raid-Z2 FreeNAS system. I could not find any. Tons of consumer ITX motherboards with 6x slots but don't support ECC. A couple Xeon ITX boards that support ECC but only 4x SATA on board. Am I missing something or does this product not exist?

The ability for ECC in Intel chips comes from their integrated memory controller and therefore only the Xeons (and new server based atoms like the S1200) can do this. I'm not really sure about what chipset the MB needs to be, but I think it is irrelevant as long as it mounts a Xeon.

I could also be very wrong

Chuu
Sep 11, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Delta-Wye posted:

I ran into the same thing, and best I could do was five SATA ports (which was enough for me). You may want to consider getting something with everything else you want plus pci express, and getting a SATA card for the express slot with a couple additional ports. A non-raid SATA card is pretty cheap, and there are plenty that are supported by freebsd.

I was considering this, but I really want to save that slot for a 10G card. Solarflare's BSD drivers should be coming out of beta very soon.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«608 »