On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Martin Bailey <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
