[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Lee Sharp" <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org>
 To:  <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 10:29:05 -0500
From: "Bart Smit" <bit at pipe dot nl>

> I would hate to see m0n0wall leave the embedded arena.

Me too.  We have pfsence for that.

>> Currently we came at a point of being stuck with the limitations of
>> flashsize and 64MB memory.

>> usage. The current recommended is 64, it will become 96/128MB. But the
>> survey tells us 27% has < 128MB and I think its possible to upgrade
>> flash as wel as memory.

> Nope. None of my 4501's have expandable memory.

>> 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? :-(

I think you are missing something.  The ram disk can expand a bit and still 
fit in 64meg.  It can expand significantly and still fit in 64meg at the 
cost of live firmware updates.  (You would have to pull and write the flash 
elsewhere.)

> 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.

Only so much fits.  I think we can get a little more, but eventually you 
will have to loose live firmware updates.  I think this is not catastrophic.

However, another fork is a bad plan.  m0n0wall is embedded, and pfsence is 
not.  Keep it that way.

                                    Lee