<![CDATA[Compact flash image sizes which one is best to use]]>I would like to ask about the different image sizes when installing to compact flash I see 512 megs 1,2, and 4 gig images. I must ask whats the benfit of going with a larger image file over using a smaller install file?

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/51443/compact-flash-image-sizes-which-one-is-best-to-useRSS for NodeFri, 10 Apr 2026 23:41:33 GMTFri, 28 Dec 2012 15:46:56 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Compact flash image sizes which one is best to use on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:45:10 GMT]]>I would say little to no difference.  In some theories the larger images might help with wear leveling, if that's even a feature of the firmware of the CF card, but at the same time it's highly possible that if the card did have wear leveling it'd still work even with a smaller partition.  Again, at the same time, it's not like the Nano versions are writing to the cards much.

Some info/discussion here: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,55760.msg298016.html#msg298016

If someone has more/better/deeper info, I'd be interested as well.  I'm building a new box and I'm debating "things".

(I have a bunch of IDE to CF adapters, but only 256MB CF cards, so I'd have to buy new, or I've got a few physically small 1GB and 2GB USB sticks sitting around, or…)

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/370061https://forum.netgate.com/post/370061Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:45:10 GMT