[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Jonathan De Graeve" <Jonathan dot DeGraeve at imelda dot be>
 To:  "Bart Smit" <bit at pipe dot nl>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>, <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall-dev] SUGGESTION: M0n0wall flashsize and Recommended memory
 Date:  Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:51:15 +0200
> I would hate to see m0n0wall leave the embedded arena.

We wouldn't, we still try to keep everything as small as possible.
Although largering the RAMsize a bit (I think it even would still fit on
the 8MB flash because the FS is compressed) could give me the option to
add sleepycat DB support (the library eats 1MB) but in turn offers us:
Concurrent insert/delete and even replication of CP db's to different
system!!!!. This in turn giving us the possibility to allow concurrent
CP operations.

I'm currently exploring different possible roads (even implementing
Chillispot). Once I have different proof-of-concepts running I'll choose
the best in performance/sizewise. Having more storage/mem just gives me
more possible options

> Nope. None of my 4501's have expandable memory.
I have a Cisco 837 at home with 48MB, not expandable. Cisco's new images
all demand 64MB. At some point requiring more is inevitable, it happens
to the best of us.

> > People with less memory can still use the current images but people
> > with the minimum amount can benefit the changes.
> And lack any important updates and fixes to current code? :-(
We'll see what brings the feature. Maintaining more images also brings
up the problem of having more possible problems.

> Rather than leaving the "small memory" people behind, I would suggest
> a split between an "embedded" and a "non-embedded" version, the latter
> being a superset of the first, and both being maintained.
> Hey what's this then? du0wall? ;-)

Don't loose Faith atm ;)