Am Sonntag, 3. Juni 2001 18:57 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, KP [iso-8859-1] Kirchdörfer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2001 23:09 schrieb Charles Steinkuehler:
> > > - Use the ramlog package instead of the log package...this puts the
> > > logs on a seperate ramdisk, avoiding the full ramdisk issues, which are
> > > the most likely thing to kill a working LRP system.
> >
> > Sorry, if I missed something, but can someone explain the advantage of
> > having extra packages for everything??
>
> Design choices. A Linux router could be built without any shell, but for
> convenience and adaptability, the LRP design uses one. The basic LRP
> design works okay with a single ramdisk, and not all machines have enough
> memory to handle two ramdisks. Packages are the easiest way to add
> functionality to an LRP system.
>
> Is this hard to understand, or is this just a rhetorical question to go
> along with an oblique announcement?
>
Wasn't meant rhetoric, just to share observations made with my own lrp-disk.
You're answer is clear and understandable.
Even it may cost extra RAM, due to the stability improvement I'm considering
a second ramdisk as a core feature. YMMV.
> Probably not, though the problems of divergence from the original versions
> should not be ignored. Contributions like this should be considered for
> incorporation into major new revisions.
Agreed. But we are talking about a major new revision.
[deleted]
> I don't quite follow... ramdisk management doesn't seem to me to be
> something that needs C code, and root.lrp will have to be modified to
> include any changed version of busybox and appropriate invocations
> thereof. But if the idea works, then it will probably be used. If not,
> it won't.
Modification of root.lrp, e.g. updating busybox, should be part of a possible
usage of cvs in the future.
regards kp
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
