From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A38621F1B0 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s2REdwHd001289; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:39:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:39:58 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Aaron Wood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:40:01 -0000 On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Aaron Wood wrote: > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:50:27 +0100 > From: Aaron Wood > To: David Lang > Cc: Dave Taht , > "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" > > Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:11 PM, David Lang 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 >