Re: Looking for suggestions for small, low power machine
Rui-Xiang Guo
> I'm wondering if anyone has tried one of these:
>
> http://www.norhtec.com/products/mcjrmx/index.html
>
> (The JRMX model).
>
> Or if not, maybe something similar.
>
> I'm looking for a small, low power machine to run NetBSD/i386 (or
> amd64 if there is a suitable machine) to be a DHCP server, netboot
> server for a few diskless machines (performance doesn't matter), and
> maybe a few other minor things. It doesn't need wifi, but it wouldn't
> hurt to have it.
http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/spearhead/pico-itx/
I think this is small enough. It has the hand-held size but i386 only.
Not yet tested it actually but there is a demo with Linux.
-rxg
--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-...@muc.de
Malcolm Herbert
> On May 24, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Andy Ruhl wrote:
> > Or if not, maybe something similar.
>
> network router/firewall/proxy/dhcpd roles:
>
> http://soekris.com/products/net5501.html
>
> ...and they worked well with NetBSD 3.x & 4.x. They're completely silent
> (if using CF cards), and run
+1 for soekris - I have two each of the net4801 and the net5501
Regards,
Malcolm
--
Malcolm Herbert This brain intentionally
mj...@mjch.net left blank
Jukka Marin
> I've been reasonably happy with Soekris 4511 and 5501 boxes for light network router/firewall/proxy/dhcpd roles:
>
> http://soekris.com/products/net5501.html
>
> ...and they worked well with NetBSD 3.x & 4.x. They're completely silent (if using CF cards), and run
Is it easy to install NetBSD on these? I think there were some quirks when
we were using older Soekris boards (many) years ago.
Wish I had the time to try porting NetBSD to AT91SAM9G20 (we have some hw
for that, but I don't like running linux on it).
-jm
Jean-Yves Moulin
On 25 May 2011, at 1:01 , Andy Ruhl wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone has tried one of these:
>
> http://www.norhtec.com/products/mcjrmx/index.html
Didn't try this one, but I'm using this board:
http://www.e-itx.com/pico820-series.html
It's a bit expensive but powerful and it works great on NetBSD. It never use more than 10w (with harddisk, compactflash and 2gb). You can find a board+case in the same site.
Fit-pc2 ( http://www.fit-pc.com/web/ ) is based on the same hardware, but I never tried it.
> I'm looking for a small, low power machine to run NetBSD/i386 (or
> amd64
If changing to NetBSD/ebvarm is not a problem, you can try seagate dockstar (it's a sheevaplug) :-)
--
jym
bifferos '
thought it was easier to say than 486SX without TSC. I didn't realise
386 support created such problems. I wonder how Linux deals with this.
So, the Bifferboard is 486SX, and it won't boot NetBSD, is this
considered a bug?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Matthias Scheler <tr...@zhadum.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:49PM +0100, bifferos ' wrote:
>> I presume this would
>> be a lot easier for someone who's worked on the x86 port, perhaps
>> whoever took out the 386 support in the first place (I've no idea if
>> that decision was made explicitly, and can be reversed).
>
> i386 support was removed by purposes because this CPU lacks support
> for atomic operations. Adding it back would be difficult and probably
> cause a performance loss for all other systems. Ther are also
> fundamental problem with NFS because the i386 CPU doesn't allow
> write protecting pages in the kernel.
>
> I am surprised that companies still built x86 CPU that aren't at least
> i486 compatible.
>
> Kind regards
>
> --
> Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
Andy Ruhl
> Didn't try this one, but I'm using this board:
>
> http://www.e-itx.com/pico820-series.html
>
> It's a bit expensive but powerful and it works great on NetBSD. It never use more than 10w (with harddisk, compactflash and 2gb). You can find a board+case in the same site.
>
> Fit-pc2 ( http://www.fit-pc.com/web/ ) is based on the same hardware, but I never tried it.
That fit-pc is closer to what I had in mind. Probably a bit of context
is necessary here:
The machine I'm using right now to do this job is a Cobalt Qube2 which
is mipsel. Netbsd works fine, but unfortunately the hardware doesn't
so much. It crashes once in a while and the power supply breaks on a
fairly regular basis (every year or so). I haven't plugged in my "kill
a watt" but I'm guessing it's using more power than some of these
newer machines would.
What I'm hoping to do is get something which will be completely
reliable, low power, and will be able to be a server for this other
NetBSD stuff I play with like my Dreamcast, Qube2, NSLU2, and maybe a
few other things mentioned above like a Mac or Sheevaplug.
I'm surprised nobody commented on my original link because it's very
similar to some stuff that has already been mentioned (e-itx, etc),
but as far as I can tell, always less expensive. It's a tiny system on
chip box with vga, serial, USB, SATA, solid state storage, and
possibly wifi for less than $200:
http://www.norhtec.com/products/mcjrmx/index.html
I've thought about stuff like Gumstix, Beagleboard, and that Biffer
thing mentioned earlier falls into the same category. A little too DIY
for this particular application, but maybe something I would try
booting off of this new machine I'm needing.
Anyway, enough for now. Keep the suggestions coming, this is fun.
Andy
Andy Ruhl
> AFAIK the xcore86 is a Vortex86MX. I have two boards based on the
> Vortex86 (one of them looking a lot like the JRMX above - so close that it's
> probably the same), -current runs fine on it (including hd controller and
> ethernet). I couldn't het the SD card reader to work (but even the BIOS
> can't handle it, it seems).
Thanks Manuel.
How are you booting it if the SD card doesn't work? I was hoping to
boot from SD, but USB would be fine too. Just one less USB port for
other stuff.
Manuel Bouyer
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> > AFAIK the xcore86 is a Vortex86MX. I have two boards based on the
> > Vortex86 (one of them looking a lot like the JRMX above - so close that it's
> > probably the same), -current runs fine on it (including hd controller and
> > ethernet). I couldn't het the SD card reader to work (but even the BIOS
> > can't handle it, it seems).
>
> Thanks Manuel.
>
> How are you booting it if the SD card doesn't work? I was hoping to
> boot from SD, but USB would be fine too. Just one less USB port for
> other stuff.
From SATA drive (a SATA SSD, actually).
It may be that my SD card was faultly when I tried this (the BIOS would
hang on it). I think the IDE driver should support the IDE controller
in SD mode (or should close), so if you can find a SD that actually works
with the BIOS it may be an option.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
Chuck Swiger
>> ...and they worked well with NetBSD 3.x & 4.x. They're completely silent (if using CF cards), and run
>
> Is it easy to install NetBSD on these? I think there were some quirks when
> we were using older Soekris boards (many) years ago.
The Soekris boxes worked fine via PXE netbooting and serial-port for the install.
Once we got a decent image working on one box, we just cloned the CF card....
Regards,
--
-Chuck
Manuel Bouyer
> >>
> >> I can provide discounted hardware to anyone wanting to work on this.
> >
> > i'm not sure it's worth it. there are now vortex86 chips much faster
> > than this one, with the same power requirements.
>
> I had to hunt to find somewhere I could buy a Vortex86 board, but when I
> did I found it for $188, so you're comparing a $56 board with a $188 one?
Yes, I agree it's more expensive. I also think it's more usefull.
>
> About power requirements, which Vortex Board consumes 1W? It seems
> the Vortex86DX CPU itself consumes 2W, so I don't see how the
> entire system can consume ~1W.
It's "max 2w", I think when the processor is idle it's much lower (I couldn't
find much info about this though) and as the processor is faster, it's
idle more often :)
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
--
bifferos '
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +0100, bifferos ' wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can provide discounted hardware to anyone wanting to work on this.
>> >
>> > i'm not sure it's worth it. there are now vortex86 chips much faster
>> > than this one, with the same power requirements.
>>
>> I had to hunt to find somewhere I could buy a Vortex86 board, but when I
>> did I found it for $188, so you're comparing a $56 board with a $188 one?
>
> Yes, I agree it's more expensive. I also think it's more usefull.
LOL... well, yes, expensive things are often more useful than cheap things,
that's why they're erm... more expensive, but the OP was talking about a DHCP
server, I was trying to keep my response on-topic :).
>> About power requirements, which Vortex Board consumes 1W? It seems
>> the Vortex86DX CPU itself consumes 2W, so I don't see how the
>> entire system can consume ~1W.
>
> It's "max 2w", I think when the processor is idle it's much lower (I couldn't
> find much info about this though) and as the processor is faster, it's
> idle more often :)
OK, but it doesn't matter. You're still comparing a CPU with a system board,
that's hardly a fair comparison.
regards,
Biff.
Thor Lancelot Simon
>
> About power requirements, which Vortex Board consumes 1W? It seems
> the Vortex86DX CPU itself consumes 2W, so I don't see how the
> entire system can consume ~1W.
>
At $56, yeah, it's somewhat interesting (it'd be a lot more interesting
if it had more than one Ethernet). Though in terms of functionality/watt
I think embedded x86 will always be a bit of a lose.
150MHz FPU-less 486 -- what's the CPU exactly? Is it an AMD Elan? I
have never seen the 150MHz variant of that chip though I have seen the
datasheet from time to time.
NetBSD does support x86 systems with no FPU. So whatever the problem is,
it's assuredly not that.
Thor
Geert Hendrickx
> On May 24, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Jukka Marin wrote:
> > when we were using older Soekris boards (many) years ago.
>
> install. Once we got a decent image working on one box, we just cloned
> the CF card....
I found it easier to just install NetBSD directly on the CF card, before
putting it in the Soekris (mine is a 4501).
Geert
--
geert.hendrickx.be :: ge...@hendrickx.be :: PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F
This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!
Manuel Bouyer
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +0100, bifferos ' wrote:
> >
> > About power requirements, which Vortex Board consumes 1W? It seems
> > the Vortex86DX CPU itself consumes 2W, so I don't see how the
> > entire system can consume ~1W.
> >
> > Anyhow, if nobody wants to work on it it's no big deal.
>
> At $56, yeah, it's somewhat interesting (it'd be a lot more interesting
> if it had more than one Ethernet). Though in terms of functionality/watt
> I think embedded x86 will always be a bit of a lose.
>
> 150MHz FPU-less 486 -- what's the CPU exactly? Is it an AMD Elan? I
It could be a vortex86 SX (http://www.vortex86sx.com/?page_id=195)
> have never seen the 150MHz variant of that chip though I have seen the
> datasheet from time to time.
>
> NetBSD does support x86 systems with no FPU. So whatever the problem is,
> it's assuredly not that.
If it's a vortex86 it would be worth trying -current again. As it's running
on the vortex86MX now, it could be running on the SX/DX as well.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
--
bifferos '
>> Anyhow, if nobody wants to work on it it's no big deal.
>
> At $56, yeah, it's somewhat interesting (it'd be a lot more interesting
> if it had more than one Ethernet). Though in terms of functionality/watt
> I think embedded x86 will always be a bit of a lose.
The chip has two ethernet ports, but the Bifferboard only connects a single
PHY, same with USB. You could make a board with dual USB and dual
ethernet, I think there's an evaluation board which does that but it isn't
widely available.
> 150MHz FPU-less 486 -- what's the CPU exactly? Is it an AMD Elan? I
> have never seen the 150MHz variant of that chip though I have seen the
> datasheet from time to time.
The CPU on the Bifferboards is either S3282, or R3210 (BGA
version) from RDC (http://www.rdc.com.tw). The data sheet is
copyright RDC, and I'm not allowed to publish it but I can send it to
individuals who want to take a look at it.
There are several CPU variants, all containing the same core:
R8610, R3210, S3282 and AMRISC20000. RDC make the first three,
I've no idea who makes the AMRISC20000.
These chips show up in a bunch of routers e.g. Sitecom WL-176, and
also the AMRISC20000 is found in the MGB-100 wireless hard disk
http://tintuc.no-ip.com/linux/tipps/mgb100/
> NetBSD does support x86 systems with no FPU. So whatever the problem is,
> it's assuredly not that.
Yes, I seem to remember needing to make a very minor change to get it
past the FPU stage, but then it got stuck on the PIC initialisation, but
it was some time ago, and obviously with an old version of NetBSD.
It's probably worth another look if -current now has an R6040 driver.
regards,
Biff.
Ivan Voras
> I'm wondering if anyone has tried one of these:
>
> http://www.norhtec.com/products/mcjrmx/index.html
>
>
> Or if not, maybe something similar.
>
> server for a few diskless machines (performance doesn't matter), and
> maybe a few other minor things. It doesn't need wifi, but it wouldn't
> hurt to have it.
It looks like the thread has mostly stayed at the "very small" end of
the spectrum, but for something actually usable beyond the bare minimum
today, these are worth looking at:
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/fit-pc2/fit-pc2-models/
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/fit-pc2/specifications/
The "2i" model has 2 Ethernet ports.
YMMV.
Andy Ruhl
Some more info:
Based on this post from Jean-Yves and some private emails that he was
kind to answer, I bought a Seagate Dockstar. It should be delivered in
the next few days. It was less than US $65 including shipping. I am
hoping it will do most of what I want it to do, but I will still be
looking for an i386 or amd64 based machine from my original post.
Buying consumer grade stuff (the Dockstar) to run NetBSD on appeals to
my idea that stuff shouldn't be wasted. I'll be posting my results on
the port-arm list once I start trying to use it.
I have a few machines which are doing stuff that I hope to combine
into a single machine, here are some stats:
Cobalt Qube2 running netbsd-5 from a fairly recent snapshot on nyftp.netbsd.org:
About 12 watts at idle, about 17 watts when building something from pkgsrc.
Oh, it has a USB card plugged into the PCI slot. It's served me well
but I think the hardware is getting shaky.
eMac 1.25 GHz running OSX 10.5.8 (32 bit powerpc):
about 103 watts at idle when the CRT monitor powers itself off. About
115 to 120 watts when I'm doing something with it.
I'm going to measure my NetBSD/i386 machine at some point as well.
This is another one I'm hoping to combine into a new machine.
Andy
David Young
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:00:33PM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 05:43:15PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:35:08PM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I got a 5501 box now - with zero documentation. How do I make it boot from
> > > > a CF card? I installed NetBSD 5.1 on a CF, and did installboot but 5501 does
> > > > not boot from the card ("No Boot device available, enter monitor.").
> > >
> > > How far does the boot get ?
> >
> > Not very far, I'm now getting "Error Disk read" which comes from bootxx.
> > I do have /boot on the CF.
>
> Provided you've got out of pbr.S all the reads start as being by sector
> number, but will be converted to CHS based on the geometry the bios
> returns - so shouldn't be wrong.
On my Soekri, I have usually had to set up CF boot media using the same
"native" track size (ordinarily it is either 32 or 63) as produced (I
think) by the attached script. *shrug*
I always forget how/why this is a problem and I have to ask David Laight
to remind me what is going on. :-)
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
dyo...@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 344-0444 x24
matthew sporleder
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:11:07AM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 05:36:05PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> > I've been reasonably happy with Soekris 4511 and 5501 boxes for light network router/firewall/proxy/dhcpd roles:
>> >
>> > http://soekris.com/products/net5501.html
>> >
>> > ...and they worked well with NetBSD 3.x & 4.x. They're completely silent (if using CF cards), and run
>>
>> Is it easy to install NetBSD on these? I think there were some quirks when
>> we were using older Soekris boards (many) years ago.
>
> a CF card? I installed NetBSD 5.1 on a CF, and did installboot but 5501 does
> not boot from the card ("No Boot device available, enter monitor.").
>
>
> -jm
>
http://mspo.com/how-to/soekris.html
Those were my notes for the 4801.
Jukka Marin
> Now I use a 2 Gb CF card, it's a bit more comfortable, with the man pages etc
> on board as well.
We used 128 MB cards in the past, but it's much easier with a 2 GB card
(and I like having man pages, gcc etc. available). CF cards are getting
rare, though...
Jukka Marin
> >We used 128 MB cards in the past, but it's much easier with a 2 GB card
> >(and I like having man pages, gcc etc. available). CF cards are getting
> >rare, though...
> >
> into pretty much any electronics shop around here and buy one off the
> shelf. There are far to many digital cameras still in use that use them
> as media for CF to disappear any time soon.
I have walked into local computer stores more than once and found no
CF cards at all.. but it might be better to look at camera stores
instead.
I have also had problems when trying to buy large quantities of CF
cards - our main supplier hasn't been able to find any reasonably
priced cards for us for a long time.