Hardware page incorrect 8MB support version?

So I was on the table of hardware, and there seems to be a copy/paste error.
It states no support for 4/32 devices from V18 (well known since a while)
And it also reports no support for 8/64 devices, but als from V18

That last one is new for me, yet quite understandable and probably needed.
But I think it probably was meant to be V22 or even V23, the text was merely copy/past duplicated and forgotten to be adjusted.

Can anyone confirm and/or feel certain enough to update the page?

This is correct. Why do you you believe it's a typo?

I personally own a 8 MB device with issues beyond version 18 - YMMV depending on device.

Well, a couple of reasons. Firstly, the 4/32 limit is by now quite old, and while there were warnings before, they were indeed very strict starting about V18. But I do not remember any such thing for 8/64 all the way up to V21

So maybe I missed a couple of memo's but to me it would seem if V18 is also the limit for 8/64, it would have been introduced retro-actively. And of course, it would be only natural if a twice as big device can tag along a little longer.

Also, the two sentences as completely identical (barring the 8/64) making copy-paste activity, and thus a copy-paste oepsie, not entirely unlikely.

And finally, I have about 20 Ubiquity 8/64 devices, and they were still being nightly build as late as V21. And running fine. I did not check V22

I mean, all in all I am not going to be too upset if V18 was the official limit. Apparently 8/64 is still being build. Or at least was, up to V21, maybe V22. And my devices run fine (mind you, I run them as AP only, so that is a lighter task then full routing/firewall)

I just thought I spotted a typo and thought I'd report it. Counter question: Is your "that is correct" knowledge, or believe?

So you don't have LuCI installed (i.e. you made the image smaller), correct?

I'm not sure what you mean.

In fact I own 5 of these devices - and there's threads discussing them - I've linked one. I would call that "knowledge". The issues with that device started to arise with versions 18 and 19.

Historically, making custom images before the existence of the Firmware Selector was more tedious - but as that became prevalent, so did varying image sizes. The second factor are users who just simply did opkg update && opkg install foo - hence using more flash space for the same software. This all plays a factor in the image size.

They are simply running Luci and its my normal config and monitor interface. I did not build anything special. Just the default build, with Luci, and I also installed tcpdump and the full wpad for mesh functions. So if anything, I made the image bigger. (well, not the image, but I installed add-on packages)

For memory, I did disabled the router and firewall (both ETH0 and ETH1 are in the same bridge) as they are only used as AP. Plenty of memory left. They run on a campground, so typically up to several dozen parallel user devices and up to two hundred parallel connections per AP

So no custom images: Again, I just downloaded the normal build. I did this last spring (I check and update most of the campground network before the start of the camping season) and I think I used V21, though it may already have been V22. No complaints from the campground owners (are family)

Ideally, we should upgrade to all AC devices (at least) instead of these N devices, but because they would practically still be 2.4GHz AC, as 5GHZ just does not have the range, I am hesitant to invest several thousand dollars in all new devices. Because the N ones still run fine.

Edit: I am aware that updating / removing packages mean you are messing with the overlay filesystem, without truly removing the original space. So I did have a habit of completely resetting or reinstalling from scratch when I was playing with which packages to use.

OK cool, I wasn't aware of any "nightly builds" that had LuCI (which made me wonder if you installed luci or luci-ssl).

Yea, I guess I got confused by this - how it's a "default build" but it has non-default software installed.

Thanks for the clarification.

OK, understood now. You did an opkg update && opkg install foo

Formally, minimum system requirements up to 23.05~ are 8/64 (and that is still functional, but marginal, with almost no space to install any packages), 24.xy~ will deprecate them.


This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.