[Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement
dave.taht at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 15:52:47 EDT 2014
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Martin Bailey <martin at 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:
>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>> is very good for the second category, the question is if we can find one
>> 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
>>> separate router and AP (using standard wndr-type platforms as the APs and
>>> higher-end board or PC as the gateway).
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
More information about the Cerowrt-devel