From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from s2.neomailbox.net (s2.neomailbox.net [5.148.176.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A153B2A3 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1465668709.2609.2.camel@homehost> From: Daniel Curran-Dickinson To: Dave Taht Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , lede-dev@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [LEDE-DEV] lede integration issues remaining from the detrius of cerowrt X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:38:57 -0000 X-Original-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:11:49 -0400 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:38:57 -0000 Hi Dave, I don't speak for the LEDE team, but it looks to me a lot of your problem is that you are using LEDE/openwrt for far bigger iron than the primary target (standard routers, including pre-AC non-NAND ones, which are really quite small and low powered). 2 TB+ storage for example, or using lighttpd instead of uhttpd are really things that don't affect the primary use case and if you want to support this, you need to find a way to do that does not negatively affect your typical router (without external storage). Regards, Daniel