[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Steve Thomas" <sthomas at consultant dot com>
 To:  "Kimmo Jaskari" <kimmo dot jaskari at gmail dot com>, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] 100% disk usage again but no php.core
 Date:  Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:01:02 -0500
Nicely worded!
I'm glad somebody said something.

I almost replied to that one myself, but I wouldn't have been
as tactful as you were.  :)




> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kimmo Jaskari" <kimmo dot jaskari at gmail dot com>
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] 100% disk usage again but no php.core
> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:26:31 +0300
> 
> 
> On 9/14/06, George Farris <farrisg at mala dot bc dot ca> wrote:
> 
> > > The second statement is why you made the first.  Actually, it IS that hard.
> > > m0n0wall runs totally in ram.  It was designed that way because CF can not
> > > take continuous writes.  Changing this would be substantially changing the
> > > structure of m0n0wall.
> >
> > Thanks for that.  It's too bad someone didn't say that before.  I didn't
> > realize the design was that inflexible.  I've taken a quick look at
> 
> I don't have any work invested in m0n0wall, but even so I take a bit
> of exception to that statement. m0n0wall is designed to run on very
> limited hardware and do it well, and the run-only-from-ram design is a
> great feature of it, not something "inflexible".
> 
> It allows one to use flash ram to store the boot image on and expect
> it to actually remain in working condition over very long periods of
> time, whereas continuously writing to the flash disk would break the
> flash memory quickly.
> 
> It allows one to run without a hard drive entirely, which is also
> great because hard drives break down a lot due to all the moving
> parts, draw useless power and generate noise and heat.
> 
> It allows one to run from a bootable CD and to use a floppy drive to
> store the settings to if one doesn't have the flash ram drive to put
> in a firewall, too.
> 
> That isn't inflexible, that is a great design feature.
> 
> > pfsense and it doesn't seem to have that design restriction, it will
> > probably be the way forward.
> 
> There is also a plethora of Linux-based firewalls out there as well if
> you don't mind running off a rotating platter that will be prone to
> breaking. Smoothwall springs to mind alongside pfsense etc.
> 
> -- -{ Kimmo Jaskari }--{ kimmo dot jaskari at gmail dot com }--
> 
> Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
> find easier ways to do something.
>   - Robert Heinlein
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch

>