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.
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 [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
