Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Martin Bailey <martin@pcalpha.com> wrote:
> The recently released v2 of the TP-Link Archer C7 router would be a
> pretty good low-cost replacement. It's fully open-source Atheros/Qualcomm,
> includes a fairly high performance 720MHz SOC with 128MB RAM, 16MB
> flash and 6 dual-band antennas (AC1750) with very good range. It can
> be found for $99 right now. The first hardware revision isn't
> supported by the ath10k driver in OpenWRT so make sure to only
> consider v2.

Boy is that a big mini-pci card! (won't fit in most mini-pci slots)

I'm not very happy with the ath10k right now but it HAS been getting better.

Is there BQL support yet for the ethernet chip?

955x_GMAC: qca955x_soc_gmac_set_mac_duplex 955x_GMAC:
qca955x_soc_gmac_set_link Done


>
> http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wdr7500
> https://wikidevi.com/wiki/TP-LINK_Archer_C7_v2.x
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704177
>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Aaron Wood wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:50:27 +0100
>>> From: Aaron Wood <woody77 at gmail.com>
>>> To: David Lang <david at lang.hm>
>>> Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>,
>>>     "cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>     <cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:11 PM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the openwrt folks could figure out how they are going to deal with
>>>> NAND
>>>> flash, it would be nice to be able to use one of the many routers that is
>>>> shipping with more flash (128M in the newer netgear routers would be
>>>> nice)
>>>>
>>>> if I were to get my hands on one, what sort of testing would you want to
>>>> do to it to tell if it looks like it would hold up?
>>>
>>>
>>> I have experience running mtd on NAND, using jffs2.  It seems to be
>>> holding
>>> up well.  Better than NOR did, honestly.  Although in general, I wish they
>>> would shift to eMMC.  But it's driven by two factors:
>>>
>>> 1) part cost
>>> 2) chipset support from the router SoC vendors
>>>
>>> Given some of the wishes that I see on here, I think for development,
>>> people would be happier with a platform that wasn't based on a router SoC
>>> (like the wndr is), but instead was based on an embedded application
>>> processor with PCIe for the radios, and an external switch fabric.
>>
>> I think we have two competing desires.
>>
>> one is to have a nice powerful device for those people who have fast
>> connections
>> and for us to experiment with.
>>
>> the second is to have a 'home' device.
>>
>> using a 3800 or similarly priced ($100-$150 USD) device that's readily
>> available
>> is very good for the second category, the question is if we can find one
>> that's
>> powerful enough for the first.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>>  But for
>>> thermal purposes alone, I've been seeing more and more external switch
>>> fabrics.  The heat of a 5-port gigabit switch IC is pretty substantial
>>> (from my teardowns).
>>>
>>> One item I think will be a boon, especially with DNSSEC, is super-cap or
>>> battery-backed rtc, but that's asking for a unicorn, I think.  Or...  a
>>> Gateworks Ventana GW5310 loaded with a couple standard (industrial-grade)
>>> PCIe radios, loaded into a custom case.  My guess is that it's a pretty
>>> expensive route, though.  I would be surprised if a completely assembled
>>> unit would be <$300.  At which point it starts to look better to just run
>>> a
>>> separate router and AP (using standard wndr-type platforms as the APs and
>>> a
>>> higher-end board or PC as the gateway).
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html