Hack a ~$300 Dual Core Haswell mini-PC with dual Intel Ethernet
-
Building a PC Engines apu2c4 box would run around the same as either the Chromebox or dual i210 mini-pcie NIC costs.
Just saying ;)
-
@lra:
Building a PC Engines apu2c4 box would run around the same as either the Chromebox or dual i210 mini-pcie NIC costs.
Just saying ;)
That's a cool board I hadn't seen before.
It might do a good job, but I have to say, I'd pick a low end Haswell core over a an AMD Jaguar any day :p
-
Hey, that's a really nice find. Most WLAN cards sit somewhere between 5-10W in consumption, depending on how many antennas they drive (more = more) That being the case the 210T chips should be easy to drive - however, I'd be more worried about the bandwidth, mini-pcie is only x1 pci-e from memory.
Yeah, I thought of that.
From doing an lspci -vvv in linux - however - it appears as if the slot it is in supports PCIe Gen2, and so do the i210 chips. If that is the case it should be able to get sufficient bandwidth to support two gigabit ethernet interfaces, even with just one PCIe lane.
Technically even a single lane of Gen1 PCIe should have enough bandwidth, but Ethernet apparently has some overhead. I have read that those who have tried have gotten about 1.4Gbit/s of Ethernet bandwidth out of a single lane of Gen1 PCIe. That means it ought to be enough for ~700Mbit/s full duplex routing, way more than I need since my connection is 150/150Mbit. It would be nice - however - to have it be future proof up to a gigabit. If it successfully connects at Gen2 speeds it should be. Time will tell.
Apparently the dual i210 mini-pcie adapter is taking the slow boat over from Taiwan, so I won't know for a little bit, but when I do, I'll be sure to post here.
Here is the lspci -vvv I was talking about for reference:
$ sudo lspci -vvvs 02:00 [sudo] password for htpc: 02:00.0 Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR9462 Wireless Network Adapter (rev 01) Subsystem: AzureWave Device 2110 Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx- Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <tabort- <mabort-="">SERR- <perr- intx-<br=""> Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19 Region 0: Memory at e0600000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size] Expansion ROM at e0680000 [disabled] [size] Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3 Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2- AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2-,D3hot+,D3cold-) Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME- Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/4 Maskable+ 64bit+ Address: 0000000000000000 Data: 0000 Masking: 00000000 Pending: 00000000 Capabilities: [70] Express (v2) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 128 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s unlimited, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE+ FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable- Non-Fatal- Fatal- Unsupported- RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop- MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes DevSta: CorrErr+ UncorrErr- FatalErr- UnsuppReq- AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x1, ASPM L0s L1, Exit Latency L0s <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM L0s L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x1, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Not Supported, TimeoutDis+, LTR-, OBFF Not Supported DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis-, LTR-, OBFF Disabled LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 2.5GT/s, EnterCompliance- SpeedDis- Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range, EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS- Compliance De-emphasis: -6dB LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete-, EqualizationPhase1- EqualizationPhase2-, EqualizationPhase3-, LinkEqualizationRequest- Capabilities: [100 v1] Advanced Error Reporting UESta: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol- UEMsk: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol- UESvrt: DLP+ SDES+ TLP- FCP+ CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol- CESta: RxErr+ BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- NonFatalErr- CEMsk: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- NonFatalErr+ AERCap: First Error Pointer: 00, GenCap- CGenEn- ChkCap- ChkEn- Capabilities: [140 v1] Virtual Channel Caps: LPEVC=0 RefClk=100ns PATEntryBits=1 Arb: Fixed- WRR32- WRR64- WRR128- Ctrl: ArbSelect=Fixed Status: InProgress- VC0: Caps: PATOffset=00 MaxTimeSlots=1 RejSnoopTrans- Arb: Fixed- WRR32- WRR64- WRR128- TWRR128- WRR256- Ctrl: Enable+ ID=0 ArbSelect=Fixed TC/VC=ff Status: NegoPending- InProgress- Capabilities: [160 v1] Device Serial Number 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 Kernel driver in use: ath9k As you can see the Atheros adapter is only connected at Gen1 speeds (2.5GT/s) but it clearly says there is support for PCIe v2, which I am taking to mean Gen2.[/size][/size]</perr-></tabort-> -
I saw something silimar here (http://blog.fosketts.net/2015/06/05/adding-a-second-ethernet-port-to-an-intel-nuc-via-mini-pcie/)
quite interesting though. -
I saw something silimar here (http://blog.fosketts.net/2015/06/05/adding-a-second-ethernet-port-to-an-intel-nuc-via-mini-pcie/)
quite interesting though.Yeah, I saw this too when I was doing my research.
The problem with this one is twofold.
The chromeboxes all use Realtek Ethernet, which I am trying to get away from, as they stink for intensive applications. I'd only use Realtek Ethernet for unimportant client loads. They really are junk.
Because of this, it's not enough for me to just add one port. I need to add two.
That, and the addon board he used in that article is also Realtek.
It wasn't until I found the dual Intel adapter I was happy with this approach. Only downside is that no one seems to carry it in inventory here. It has to be special ordered via b2b type distributors from Taiwan.
-
-
@BlueKobold:
@lra:
Building a PC Engines apu2c4 box would run around the same as either the Chromebox or dual i210 mini-pcie NIC costs.
Just saying ;)
APU2C4 board & this case would also march.
Yeah, I am still very wary of AMD's low power chips. The IPC is quite horrendous to begin with, and then they lower the clock speed down to only 1ghz.
Maybe I'm silly, but I just don't trust anything that's not a fully fledged Intel desktop class core today. I won't even go Atom, and certainly not Jaguar/Puma.
I have an old Zacate based E350 Micro-ATX board kicking around, which wasn't bad for the time, and used out of order execution and really kicked some Atom butt back in the day, but times have changed and not been too kind to AMD unfortunately. (Maybe they can come back with the Zen launch later this year, who knows) I wouldn't use it as my router though.
I'll take a Haswell/Skylake desktop class chip, slowed down to fit a lower power envelope before I go with anything Atom/Jaguar/Puma/etc.
-
@BlueKobold:
@lra:
Building a PC Engines apu2c4 box would run around the same as either the Chromebox or dual i210 mini-pcie NIC costs.
Just saying ;)
APU2C4 board & this case would also march.
Yeah, I am still very wary of AMD's low power chips. The IPC is quite horrendous to begin with, and then they lower the clock speed down to only 1ghz.
Maybe I'm silly, but I just don't trust anything that's not a fully fledged Intel desktop class core today. I won't even go Atom, and certainly not Jaguar/Puma.
I have an old Zacate based E350 Micro-ATX board kicking around, which wasn't bad for the time, and used out of order execution and really kicked some Atom butt back in the day, but times have changed and not been too kind to AMD unfortunately. (Maybe they can come back with the Zen launch later this year, who knows) I wouldn't use it as my router though.
I'll take a Haswell/Skylake desktop class chip, slowed down to fit a lower power envelope before I go with anything Atom/Jaguar/Puma/etc.
Depends on your applications, normal filtering/routing with a few add-on package, latest ATOM processors will do the job nicely. Just like the Avoton C2750/Rangeley C2758, in desktop benchmark they can out perform i3 processors when using all 8-core, nowadays it's a bit rare that firewall applications won't run in multithreaded way so you don't need to worry about it's performance, and I don't see the point that why we have to spend more money on faster platform but to keep it slowed down just for reducing power, that's not the intended behaviour.
Yes I agree that those embedded platforms are expensive compared with general PC, but most of them are industrial grade with long life support (like my Jetway NF9HG-2930, the support will not end before 2019) and designed to run as network appliance. To do an apple-to-apple comparison it's better to fit the whole full fledged processor on server/industrial grade motherboard etc….then you'll find that the cost is still much higher compared with embedded platform.
-
Well, it looks like my order for the NIC in this thread may have fallen through. Sales guy is no longer getting back to me. It's probably because they are primarily a business to business distributor, and it isn't worth their time selling to consumers like myself.
I'll have to go back to the drawing board and figure out something else.
I'm still wary of that low power embedded AMD board, but it IS priced rather well…
-
Any more updates on your attempts here? I was just thinking the same thing for my unused Asus Chromebox…
-
This may be more easily available.
http://www.jetwayipc.com/content/?ADMPEIDLA_220.htmlI used one in a couple of small build and so long as there's some airflow it won't overheat or lock-up