Changes between Version 113 and Version 114 of FAQ


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2015-10-30T09:06:12Z (5 years ago)
Author:
daira
Comment:

avoid "dumb"

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • FAQ

    v113 v114  
    3939A: Yes.  François Deppierraz contributes [//buildbot-tahoe-lafs/builders/Francois%20lenny-armv5tel a buildbot] which shows that Tahoe-LAFS builds and all the unit tests pass on his Intel SS4000-E NAS box running under Debian Squeeze.  Zandr Milewski [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-November/003157.html reported] that it took him only an hour to build, install, and test Tahoe-LAFS on a !PogoPlug. Johannes Nix [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2012-March/007073.html reported] that the Tahoe-LAFS storage server runs okay on a "DNS-323" which has 64 MB of RAM.
    4040
    41 If you try it, note that the Tahoe-LAFS storage ''server'' is a much less demanding process than the Tahoe-LAFS gateway. The server doesn't do any decryption or digital signature signing or verifying or erasure coding, and in general is pretty dumb, so it fits more easily into RAM and CPU limits. The gateway has to do all of that, so it requires more CPU and RAM than the server does. Please send a letter to the tahoe-dev mailing list if you try deploying Tahoe-LAFS on an embedded device and let us know the details of your device and how well it worked.
     41If you try it, note that the Tahoe-LAFS storage ''server'' is a much less demanding process than the Tahoe-LAFS gateway. The server doesn't do any decryption or digital signature signing or verifying or erasure coding, and in general does only pretty mundane stuff, so it fits more easily into RAM and CPU limits. The gateway has to do all of that, so it requires more CPU and RAM than the server does. Please send a letter to the tahoe-dev mailing list if you try deploying Tahoe-LAFS on an embedded device and let us know the details of your device and how well it worked.
    4242
    4343'''[=#Q6_windows Q6:] Does Tahoe-LAFS work on Windows?'''