On Apr 5, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Adam Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14-04-05 02:02 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/03/intel-releases-99-minnowboard-max-an-open-source-single-board-computer/?utm_campaign=fb&ncid=fb >>> An interesting platform for pfSense? >>> It looks like it only has 1 NIC though. >> I looked at this earlier in the week when it was released. >> It’s interesting, >> [...] >> and Circuitco is just up the highway in Richardson, TX. I’ve considered >> driving up and seeing what it would take to take >> the schematics (when they are available) and have a board built with 2 >> Ethernets (rather than one), and maybe >> a miniPCIe socket (for an 802.11 NIC, as pfSense 2.2 should make a lot more >> of these work, or possibly an m-sata drive), >> in addition to pulling the expansion header off, and connectorizing the >> serial ‘debug’ header for a proper console. > Given the high up-front costs to produce a variant board, wouldn't it be > easier, faster and cheaper to just use the expansion header, which IIRC > includes two PCIe 1x lanes? If a breakout cable existed that provided 2 PCIe > slots, it would be possible to simultaneously have much more flexibility in > enclosure design (e.g. PCIe cards underneath the board?) as well as > flexibility in choice of add-on. The expansion header only includes one PCIex1 2.0 lane, 1x SATA2, 1x USB 2.0 host, I2C, GPIO, JTAG, +5VDC, GND http://www.minnowboard.org/meet-minnowboard-max/ > I don't see that a breakout cable exists yet for the high-speed expansion > bus, so there's that minor (*cough*) problem... but that seems a much smaller > problem than re-tooling the board. > >> We would need a simple enclosure as well. Painted (or powder-coated) >> steel is less expensive than anodized aluminum, but I think the anodized >> aluminum looks > In case you don't have a local firm you're happy with, talk to Protocase for > sample qtys. I've seen them be cheaper than mass mfg for small runs of > simple cases (e.g. interlocked-U style). We have a local firm we’re pretty happy with. We also have a lot of experience in injection molding now (smallworks.com) >> The other issue is single or dual core and 1GB or 2GB ram (4GB?)? > The stock 2GB version should be adequate (barely) IMHO for most applications > that function with that class of CPU/ethernet/storage anyway. > Much more interesting to me would be if a small, low-cost board like that > were available with ECC. That CPU does support ECC RAM, after all… yes it does. ECC ram is also a lot more expensive. >> How interesting is the m-sata / miniPCIe option? > Not to me, as I tend to deploy pfSense at the higher-end of the spectrum, but > *some* way to add WiFi would probably be important for the putative target > audience. USB probably won't cut it for an AP, so mPCIe is probably needed. > Again, expansion-header-to-mPCIe should be possible instead of reworking the > board... and unlike PCIe 1x sockets, that wouldn't take up much more room > than putting the mPCIe headers on the board. see above. >> How you can help: >> >> Indicate your level of interest. > Neat, but not commercially interesting to me right now. Linksys/ASUS/D-Link > make cheaper gateways that are "good enough" for home users, and commercial > users will either get a FortiWiFi (or equivalent) or if pfSense, re-use an > existing rackmount server. > >> This board would without a doubt cost more than the minnow board. I don’t >> know how much more, but we’re not going to hit the >> same volumes as the minnow board. (I could be wrong.) The minnow board >> could be subsidized by Intel. (I could be wrong.) > See above comments :-). I'm not sure if a breakout cable is 100% workable, > but if so it's a faster/cheaper option than mPCIe. > >> It’s going to require a significant investment (up-front NRE), an investment >> in getting a run of these made, and some return on those investments >> (profit). >> >> How important is form-factor? Larger PCBs cost more, but can sometimes >> relax routing enough to not need additional layers (fewer layers tend >> to cost less). > Smaller is better. Otherwise I may as well just deploy a miniITX or 1U > system. Which, yes, argues *against* using a breakout cable for PCIe. > >> - dual core or single core? Remember that pfSense 2.2 (which is based on >> FreeBSD 10) supports a pf capable of multi-threading. > Good question - optimize for today or for tomorrow? Back when I was a teenager, I liked to hang out in the local speed shop. There was a plaque on the wall, with a very bent connecting rod, and the following lettered below it: “Speed costs money, son. How fast do you want to go?” This was before Mad Max appropriated it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079501/quotes?item=qt0427399 Jim _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
