This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:06:00 -0800 From: Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> To: Ixanian Craig Nichols <fathom@armory.com> Cc: svlug <svlug@lists.svlug.org> Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks Ixanian Craig Nichols wrote: > What I'd really like to have is a cheap, low-power, diskless, fanless device > with 2 NICs. Small footprint would be nice, too. Does anyone know of such a > device? See http://www.openbrick.org And also http://www.hacom.net/catalog/ === Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:45:52 -0800 From: josh <joshw@speakeasy.net> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks As something of an aside, how about using the mini-itx* boards? Seems a lot cheaper than the $390 for that openbrick thing. Anyone have any experience with linux on these? - josh *http://www.mini-itx.com === Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:56:40 -0800 From: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:55:32AM -0800, Greg Herlein wrote: > > You looked at the Soekris boards[1]? > Retail for one in a case is $262. On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:06:00PM -0800, Jeffrey Siegal wrote: > Ixanian Craig Nichols wrote: > >What I'd really like to have is a cheap, low-power, diskless, fanless > >device with 2 NICs. Small footprint would be nice, too. Does anyone know > >of such a device? > > See http://www.openbrick.org > And also http://www.hacom.net/catalog/ Both of these seem kind of expensive for what you get. The cheapest Soekris in a case is $222 for a 133MHz 486-class, and the cheapest at Hacom is a $390 300MHz Geode. Fry's has the EPIA (800, I think) for $129, and a mini-itx case for about $80. Admitted, it's not fanless, but it's still relatively quiet, and there's a less powerful version available that runs totally fanless. Rumour has it these will netboot out of the box as well. All you'd have to do is add RAM and a second NIC. -rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick This space intentionally bloodyvikings@ Schultz left blank sbcglobal.net --===============24739385260689284== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:28:46 -0800 (PST) From: Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com> To: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net> Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302032027490.14283-100000@tux.herlein.com> In-Reply-To: <20030204005640.GA5116@superhallway.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 8 > Fry's has the EPIA (800, I think) for $129, and a mini-itx case for > about $80. Admitted, it's not fanless, but it's still relatively quiet, > and there's a less powerful version available that runs totally fanless. > Rumour has it these will netboot out of the box as well. All you'd have > to do is add RAM and a second NIC. Which puts you at $209 before the second NIC, when a two-port Soekris in a case is $222... and it netboots too. :) === Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:55:32 -0800 From: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:28:46PM -0800, Greg Herlein wrote: > > Fry's has the EPIA (800, I think) for $129, and a mini-itx case for > > about $80. Admitted, it's not fanless, but it's still relatively quiet, > > and there's a less powerful version available that runs totally fanless. > > Rumour has it these will netboot out of the box as well. All you'd have > > to do is add RAM and a second NIC. > > Which puts you at $209 before the second NIC, when a two-port > Soekris in a case is $222... and it netboots too. :) > > Greg Well, when you folks find a box that supports 3 or more nics, then you have something interesting. I just can't get too excited about 2 nics. I do see the merit for using them as a wireless access point. But then 1 nic and an open PCI slot is sufficient. cheers, Karen -- Karen Shaeffer Neuralscape, Palo Alto, Ca. 94306 shaeffer@neuralscape.com http://www.neuralscape.com --===============24739385260689284== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:07:11 -0800 From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> To: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks Message-ID: <21857.1044335231@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: Message from Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> <20030204045532.GA19739@synapse.neuralscape.com> References: <20030204005640.GA5116@superhallway.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302032027490.14283-100000@tux.herlein.com> <20030204045532.GA19739@synapse.neuralscape.com> Precedence: list Message: 11 MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:55:32 -0800 Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> wrote: > Well, when you folks find a box that supports 3 or more nics, then you > have something interesting. I just can't get too excited about 2 > nics. I do see the merit for using them as a wireless access > point. But then 1 nic and an open PCI slot is sufficient. An open PCI slot would allow you to put a 4 port NIC in there. === Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:21:47 -0800 From: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:07:11PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:55:32 -0800 > Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> wrote: > > > Well, when you folks find a box that supports 3 or more nics, then you > > have something interesting. I just can't get too excited about 2 > > nics. I do see the merit for using them as a wireless access > > point. But then 1 nic and an open PCI slot is sufficient. > > An open PCI slot would allow you to put a 4 port NIC in there. Good point JC. Although I have heard that those 4 port NICs can be flaky on Linux boxes, when they are all up and engaged simultaneously under heavy load. Do you have any experience with them? === Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:33:32 -0800 From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> To: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:21:47 -0800 Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:07:11PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:55:32 -0800 Karen Shaeffer > Although I have heard that those 4 port NICs can be flaky on Linux > boxes, when they are all up and engaged simultaneously under heavy > load. Do you have any experience with them? I have used the 4-port Intel EEPro with some success (and am about to deploy one this week in fact), however I've not tried to saturate all four ports simultaneously. === Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:46:46 -0800 From: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:33:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:21:47 -0800 > Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:07:11PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > > I have used the 4-port Intel EEPro with some success (and am about to > deploy one this week in fact), however I've not tried to saturate all > four ports simultaneously. Cool. I'm just referring to some posts to the netdev list by a fellow that has posted a number of inquiries concerning very poor performance of (tulip) based 4 port nics under heavy, simultaneous load. IIRC, he builds and sells network test equipment based on Linux systems. He had some specific conditions that precipitated repeatable performance issues. As I remember this, I think it was a limitation of the 2.4 network subsystem rather than the NICs themselves. I could have a faulty memory here... === Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:57:39 -0800 From: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:28:46PM -0800, Greg Herlein wrote: > Which puts you at $209 before the second NIC, when a two-port > Soekris in a case is $222... and it netboots too. :) Yeah, I thought that might have been a bit unclear after I'd sent it. My point was this: for about the same price, you can either get a 133MHz 486-class board, or something that appears to be several times more powerful. Or am I reading these specs wrong? === Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 22:02:13 -0800 From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> To: Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> Cc: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:46:46 -0800 Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer@neuralscape.com> wrote: > I'm just referring to some posts to the netdev list by a fellow that > has posted a number of inquiries concerning very poor performance of > (tulip) based 4 port nics under heavy, simultaneous load. IIRC, he > builds and sells network test equipment based on Linux systems. He had > some specific conditions that precipitated repeatable performance > issues. As I remember this, I think it was a limitation of the 2.4 > network subsystem rather than the NICs themselves. I could have a > faulty memory here... Hurm. I'll make note of that. Thanks. In this particular usage (home) I doubt I'll saturate the NIC, but I'll keep an eye out in future. === Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:12:34 -0800 From: Rick Schultz <bloodyvikings@sbcglobal.net> To: svlug@lists.svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] Routers for small networks On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:10:07AM -0800, Andrew Bertola wrote: > On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 16:56, Rick Schultz wrote: > > Fry's has the EPIA (800, I think) for $129, and a mini-itx case for > > about $80. > I'm using exactly this combination (with used 10GB HDD and Hawkins > 10/100 NIC) for a NAT router and firewall. Any comments on it regarding noise or (if you happen to know) power consumption? Any comments on using the TV out under X (if you've happened to try)? I'm just curious. It looks like this would make a good router/firewall/mp3 player/HTPC/mythtv kind of box, but I'm looking for some user experiences before I shell out the cash for it. ===