[Snort-users] 1.9.1 versus 2.0.x
cmg at ...1935...
Tue May 27 13:16:06 EDT 2003
John Sage <jsage at ...2022...> 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 at ...1935...>
Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever.
More information about the Snort-users