[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Lee Sharp" <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] PIX vs. Monowall
 Date:  Thu, 11 May 2006 14:33:56 -0500
From: "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
> On 5/11/06, Lee Sharp <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org> wrote:

> > First, 64 meg has some known issues with upgrading firmware.

> That's not true.  The only time that's been a verified problem is on
> one specific version where racoon could leak memory under some
> circumstances.  I've never had any issues upgrading with 64 MB on a
> number of machines.

I do remember a series of captive portal betas where the image disk size was 
increased.  Upgrades from that image with other large images would crash on 
64mb.  This was not production images, but since a lot of us run bets in 
production...

I still say the page is a tad dated and misleading.  I would only say 64mb 
with a big caveat, and the same for the 8mb flash.  And I am a firm believer 
in overbuilding for today's specs. :-)

                        Lee