tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25
2
0
Issues 1.1k Wiki Activity

avoid "dumb" 

[Imported from Trac: page FAQ, version 114]
daira 2015-10-30 09:06:12 +00:00
parent e3c520f6ae
commit f8eb3e3990
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
FAQ.md

@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ A: [<https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/docs/architecture.rst>]sourc
A: 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. A: 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.
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. 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 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.
**<a name="Q6_windows">Q6:</a> Does Tahoe-LAFS work on Windows?** **<a name="Q6_windows">Q6:</a> Does Tahoe-LAFS work on Windows?**