Re: 1.9.1 versus 2.0.x

[Chris Green <cmg () sourcefire com>]

John Sage <jsage () finchhaven com> writes:

> A long, long time ago in a galaxy far...
>
> /* No, wait, that's not right */
>
> Several weeks ago Erek posted something that suggested that 2.0.x has
> a considerably bigger memory footprint than 1.9.1 and that if one was
> running low-end hardware, 2.0.x might not be happy.
>
> Given: Pentium 150 classic, 96mb RAM, Linux 2.4-18.5, no X, go with
> snort 1.9.1 or 2.0.x?

always 2.x, there's a lowmem option for people in your situation :) 

config detection: search-method lowmem

-- 
Chris Green <cmg () sourcefire com>
Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
_______________________________________________
Snort-users mailing list
Snort-users () lists sourceforge net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users