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.
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).
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...
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.
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?
--
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
