New $149 NetBSD Single Board Computer Port 113
An Anonymous NetBSD User writes "NetBSD now supports a new ARM board, the Technologic Systems TS-7200. The TS-7200 is a low cost ($149!) mass produced embedded single board computer that runs on less than 2 watts of power."
Fun! (Score:2)
Re:Fun! (Score:1, Informative)
Might as well get a Soekris net4801 (www.soekris.com). You get two more ethernet ports (three total), a faster processor (266Mhz x86 compat vs. 200Mhz MIPS), more RAM (128MB vs. 32MB), and a compact PCI and a real PCI slot (3.3v cards only).
It costs $50 more, and you get tons more features, most of which are mandatory for a firewall.
Re:Fun! (Score:2)
Direct Link to the Board (Score:5, Informative)
Keep It Real, Lameness Filter(TM)
Re:Direct Link to the Board and specs (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Direct Link to the Board (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, you have to pay quite a bit extra ($180) to get the kit with a power supply (gotta have one of those), and a CompactFlash card (also gotta have one of those. 8MB RAM(or 16 if you get the $165 version) is going to fill up quickly.)
True, but have you checked out the competition? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microcontrollershop.com [microcontrollershop.com]
Here is a similar Atmel board but this is only 8 bit and $153. Atmel Ethernut Board [microcontrollershop.com]
8MB or 16MB flash with 32MB ram on a 32 bit processor is a good deal in the world of small low powr computers. (but still expensive compared to x86 desktop)
Re:Direct Link to the Board (Score:1, Informative)
How many microcontrollers do you know of that will run Apache?
5V power supplies are ubiquitous and can be purchased for like $4 at allelectronics.com. CF cards also and can be purchased for $26 elsewhere, even Target has them.
Funny this should come up (Score:4, Funny)
I've recently been looking at small / quiet form factor boards from places like Mini-ITX [mini-itx.com] - I'm embedding an X terminal into my glass topped dining room table.
I've had it with desktops; time for the X table top.
Re:Funny this should come up (Score:2)
Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen this kind of thing from several of these kinds of suppliers and I don't quite get it. They don't seem to realize that things like flash are fully commoditized and are still thinking they can get away with a 100% markup...
Oh well, if they can actually sell CF at those prices, then they deserve the money. Kudos for such a sweet, low power, inexpensive computer either way.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:2)
Take a look at Dell's RAM pricing sometime.
My company always buys our Dell machines with the minimal amount of memory and then buys the amount of memory we're actually going to use from somewhere local.
I'll never forget one time when we saved almost $500 doing things that way on a single server...
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:1)
Now, I just need to take the time to ebay that 256 MB stick.
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:2)
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, some (not all) of our CF are inflated because they are the the "industrial" class CF's. These have extended rewrite cycles, higher G ratings, and work in extended temperature.
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.sandisk.com/industrial/flash-drive.a
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:2)
Their 2-NIC model (for use as firewall) goes for $140.
Their flash is not overpriced either ($17.25 for 128MB CF).
I run OpenBSD on one of those, so I am pretty sure NetBSD should run on them too.
Openbsd on the 2nic: (Score:1)
and of course, given much thought into selling your own brand of firewalls?
Re:Openbsd on the 2nic: (Score:2)
Re:Crack-influenced flash prices... (Score:2)
We can run Debian on it already (Score:1)
Re:We can run Debian on it already (Score:2)
I'd be very suprised if Debian actually supported it as well as NetBSD, based on the dubious support for non-i386 architectures. Debian's Sparc support is hit and miss, and their SGI MIPS support is a joke.
Re:We can run Debian on it already (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why you should go with Linux, rather than NetBSD, since NetBSD's notion of "support" runs to "we can get it to boot on this hardware" rather than "works well on this hardware and supports all common drivers"
Your description of NetBSD's hardware support is a bit odd. Unlike Linux where the philosophy is "if it works on one platform include it", NetBSD is designed so that a driver written for one platform will work reliably on all those that support the same device. As for missing support for some devices, that's no more or less true than Linux. Compare the support for SGI MIPS for example - when it works in Debian it supports a similar subset of systems and devices. Likewise for the Vax, although here Linux supports a tiny suset of the systems and devices that NetBSD does. Linux has a large proportion of platforms that are only notionally supported (they booted once upon a time, but have languished thanks to Linus being primarily concerned with i386).
all things considered, Gentoo is a better bet
I don't know of a single embedded company using Gentoo (embedded boards being the subject of the original article), and all the embedded Linux kits I've used have been based on RedHat. I also know of no companies using Gentoo on their servers - again it is RedHat along with the odd SuSE box. I did encounter Debian once as a contractor, but the guy who had installed it was reputedly a loose cannon and ahad done it without auhorisation (one of my first tasks was to switch the machine in question to RedHat).
Re:We can run Debian on it already (Score:1)
If something does not work, you can always fire a bug, whichever distro you are using, but if the platform is more "standardized", this happens less frequently.
Re:We can run Debian on it already (Score:2)
Re:We can run Debian on it already (Score:5, Informative)
I did both the Linux port and the NetBSD port to the TS-7200 so I am uniquely qualified on their differences. IMHO, to an engineer actually doing the work, NetBSD is a far superior OS to port to, at least to this platform.
The port is not a "we can get it to boot" port of NetBSD. There is installatium medium on a FTP site, a system installation program (sysinst), cross-toolchain support and even support for the ISA (PC/104) bus, which is something that is really impossible right now on Linux due to its x86 assumptions littered throughout ISA drivers. (Ever tried to use inb and outb on an ARM?, there is no such thing! ISA bus space is memory mapped and appears at a different spot depending on 8 or 16bit accesses)
Although you can run it on Debian, Debian does not support it. I had to do all that work myself, and Technologic Systems is supporting it on this platform. There aren't any TS-7200 kernels on debian.org.
SBCs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SBCs (Score:4, Informative)
I've even talked to one guy who was using one at a remote radio tower which serviced an entire town of wireless users. He had a cheap solar panel hooked up to a little battery, both of which powered the soekris for years without problems.
Re:SBCs (Score:2)
How much does a setup like that cost? Where can I find out more? Just curious, there's a lot of useless crap when I try to figure it out with google. It'd be great to hear from someone who has been successful with it.
Re:SBCs (Score:1, Interesting)
then you just need a simple lead-acid car battery, anywhere from $50 to $150 IIRC. and a charge controller to keep the panels from overcharging the battery.
Re:SBCs & Solar Power (Score:2)
Re:SBCs (Score:2)
Re:SBCs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SBCs (Score:4, Informative)
We are a company purely of computer engineers and cheap case design is not really our specialty. We are indeed investigating cheaper case designs and 2/3 ethernet variants and in the future will have no trouble undercutting Soekris.
Re:SBCs (Score:2)
Re:SBCs (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd love to replace my appliance with a low po
Re:SBCs (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't the "Internet, LAN, and DMZ" paradigm pretty common for routers/gateways?
Re:SBCs (Score:2)
Re:SBCs (Score:2)
For routers/gateways, yes. For something like, say, an irrigation system controller, even one ethernet is somewhat unusual.
Re:SBCs (Score:1)
Actually, 1.875 Watts. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure NetBSD has already got an x86 port too...
An extra $50 can buy a lot more technology elsewhere.
Re:Actually, 1.875 Watts. (Score:2)
The TS-7200 targets a different market. I don't think anyone is under any sort of illusion that this is going to sell a lot of units; it's a prototype board for developers. If you judge it by the standard of oddball-architecture boards, its price is extremely reasonable.
Doesn't seem very good for development, though, with only 32MB of RAM.
That's just the cpu (Score:2)
Re:That's just the cpu (Score:2)
http://www.lippert-at.com/index.php?id=21
Best FPU per Clock of any current microarcitecture:
http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php
At 2 Ghz it should be to OGG encoding what a GPU is to Graphics Rendering.
- expect to pay laptop prices for it -
How fast do you want to spend?
Re:That's just the cpu (Score:2)
Re:That's just the cpu (Score:2)
But if it was up to me I'd look for a MIPS R5000. They have good floating point (powered the multimedia machines of the last generation, mostly SGI boxes) and maintain the advantages of low-power low-heat processors. They can also run in 64 bit mode but not many free OSs support this properly.
Try this out: Find y
Re:That's just the cpu (Score:2)
That's from a friend of mine off another forum.
Gentoo's documentation on running MIPS agrees that 2.6 isn't flying on it. In 2.6.10 it might be fixed, but the changelogs don't show anything like that - after all, it's old and irrelevant right? Who cares about hardware not actively in use by big corporations?
Embedded NetBSD (Score:1)
Lower priced board also available. (Score:2, Informative)
Temperature range (Score:2)
I need it to be able to withstand operating temperatures as low as -40C, since it will be outside in the winter (and later this week, it will be -38C here, so it really does need to handle -40C).
I suppose some sort of heater in the enclosure would be one way to deal with it, but I'd love to know if this board or a similar one could handle the temps without any extra effort.
Re:Temperature range (Score:1)
Re:Temperature range (Score:2)
Condensation (Score:2)
Re:Temperature range (Score:2)
Time to revise these stories (Score:1)
Re:Time to revise these stories (Score:3, Informative)
NetBSD not supporting an architecture means one of two things: (1) the architecture has no processors with an MMU, or (2) no developer has the hardware
This explains no NetBSD on iPaq/etc for (1) and no NetBSD on ppc64/ia64 for (2).
As we can see by these examples (especially that nice post by the developer who supported this board under NetBSD), when it does support the hardware, it supports it properly, not just as x86 compatibility. That's the key differen
Re:Time to revise these stories (Score:2)
Should be more careful about what you post. Doesn't help your credibility, Anonymous Coward.
Gumstix SBC (Score:1)
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:3, Insightful)
NetBSD is portable in the Right Way. It actually abstracts architectures, busses, etc. completely, with nothing i386-specific leaving the i386 world (to
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:1)
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)
Enough said.
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)
I'm now using this as a reference to Linux unportability because it DOES support what I'm saying, unlike your dumb ass.
An example you'll find elsewhere in this sub-thread:
The Linux memory management system is designed around the three-level MMU available on Intel x86 processors. For these and similar processors, this works extremely well. However, systems with other MMU designs are fo
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)
http://www.wasabisystems.com/pdfs/Linux_or_BSD.pd f
The Linux memory management system is designed around the three-level MMU available on Intel x86 processors. For these and similar processors, this works extremely well. However, systems with other MMU designs are forced to suffer the complexity and performance impact of making the underlying hardware appear to function like a three level MMU system. In many cases this requires code to perform specific low level hardwar
Re:Gumstix SBC (Score:2)