At 07:57 PM 2/27/00 -0500, jamal wrote:
>
>
>>Flash wears out Pal. Its only more "reliable" as a read-only medium.
>>This argument is so old and so wrong thats its become totally nauseating.
>>First of all, tens of thousands of people are doing it (HD-based routers
>>running unix that is), mostly ISPs who have a much higher requirement
>>than a corporate network with a lousy T1. Secondly, hard drives today
>>have an MTBF of 10 years or more, so what is your basis for this
>>widely-held yet absurd "opinion"?
>
>
>Actually it depends on how you use the flash-disk. Your arguement is valid
>only if you use the flash disk for more than just kernel/config
>parameters i.e you mount it and continously trash it with it writes. Most
>people who argue for flash disks use them to just boot the system. There
>are normally very few writes -- mostly config updates.
>Incase you were wondering about logs -- redirected syslog is your friend.
My "point" (which is completely valid) was that its a lot of work and
expense for nothing. Cobalt, case and point, uses flash for boot and if
your disk crashes the system is toast. so all you've done is added a lot of
expense for no gain.
DB
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
