From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F8D3B2A3 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u5C0uGl4014340; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 17:56:16 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 17:56:16 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Daniel Curran-Dickinson cc: Dave Taht , lede-dev@lists.infradead.org, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: <1465668709.2609.2.camel@homehost> Message-ID: References: <1465668709.2609.2.camel@homehost> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:56:25 -0000 On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > 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). While CeroWRT has expanded it's aim to be able to support today's faster network connections (up to and including the 1G connections now available), that's not really the issue here. Even low-end devices now include a USB port, and it's really easy to plugi in an external USB drive that's >2TB. 3TB drives are now <$100 Now, if support for larger drives really does add a lot to the system footprint, it should be optional. But how much space are we talking about here? It should at least be an easy-to-select option. David Lang