maemo.org - Talk - The Case for a Pocketable Server

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- General (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - The Case for a Pocketable Server (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=23727)

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 226251)

Please check the original post. The goal here is for applications (games, etc) that are highly portable. Forget x86 dependencies. That's too Microsoft-centric. I'm talking flash, java, silverlight, etc.

Personally, I don't care to support ANY closed source apps for this premise.

(There are many x86 game servers available for Linux.)

In that case the architecture doesn't matter much although I find OpenblockS resources:

Quote:

CPU IBM PowerPC 405GPr Embedded Processor (266MHz)
Memory PC133 SDRAM 64MB (Non-Expandable)

Limited. This is half as much RAM as the NIT has, and the processor seems slow, too, athough it is a RISC.

Its more meant as router. 500 USD for such a DIY router is quite laughable though, at least IMO. Especially if you consider it only has 2 10/100 LAN ports.

I think you'll have most luck with a thin client or desktop although these don't have a LCD touch screen by default.

An example of a thin client now. CherryPal has this:

Quote:

Freescale’s MPC5121e mobileGT processor, 800 MIPS (400 MHz) of processing
256 MB of DDR2 DRAM

And VGA, and a lot more. Small, uses 2W.

:o my mistake calling it CherryPC that must have been a Brain glitch. Damn you, Pinky.

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolouis (Post 226293)

For the record as far as power consumption goes the x86 Geode equipment is quite conservative; the big difference between it and the OMAP/ARMs is the sleep/low power modes which in this scenario I don't see as a big factor.

I read here it uses 4-6W but that must be excluding the HDD? Flash with PATA interface or SSD (40 or 44 pin?) is an option though.

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolouis (Post 226293)

We all know that GA loves his OMAPs, and I'm in no way saying that the Beagle board and OMAP3 systems aren't awesome, but I just can't see them being ready for this sort of application right now, both from a development point of view and from a cost point of view.

What development? Drop Debian, Ubuntu or Ångstrom (for the best armv7 compatibility) on there and be done with it. All three have good arm branches, so there's really no benefit to x86 here (besides, we're not dealing with binary-only software anyway).

And what cost? The Beagle is $149 out the door. Certainly sounds cheaper than the FitPC. Drop in the rest of the parts to turn it into a server and . . . you're about on-par with the FitPC. Heck, the overo sounds like it may be even cheaper (and will bundle additional stuff like Bluetooth and WiFi).

I do have a bias towards OMAP and ARM. x86 is a commodity. It's not interesting—"Oh, boy, another cheap x86 computer . . . haven't seen that before." Building an x86 something or other is old news. It's been done to death and nobody really cares anymore.

ARM on the other hand. In this in this sort of performance bracket? It's is new and exciting. It hasn't been done to death. It's fast, low power, and interesting.

Besides, since it's a pocketable server that seems to be being outlined here, it's gonna run off a battery and x86 is a major handicap for that sort of usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolouis (Post 226293)

For the record, x86 simply can't compete with ARM power-wise. Looking at Wikipedia, the Geode takes up almost as much juice as the whole Beagle Board (1.8W for the Geode vs. 2W under load for the whole Beagle).

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles (Post 226345)

x86 is a commodity. It's not interesting—"Oh, boy, another cheap x86 computer . . . haven't seen that before." Building an x86 something or other is old news. It's been done to death and nobody really cares anymore.

ARM on the other hand. In this in this sort of performance bracket? It's is new and exciting. It hasn't been done to death. It's fast, low power, and interesting.

None of the above really makes a case for nor against anything at all. If what we want is a pocketable/backpackable server, who cares whether it's commodity vs geeky-chic? What matters is: does it get the job done in a small enough form factor?

Quote:

Besides, since it's a pocketable server that seems to be being outlined here, it's gonna run off a battery and x86 is a major handicap for that sort of usage.

THAT makes the case against x86.

The fitpc wants 12V and 4-6W. What size battery does that take if you want it to last 4-7 hours (ie. comparable to the NIT)? Does anyone pre-make a battery that could easily be connected to the fitpc?

Are there any pre-packaged solutions for the beagleboard? What are their power and battery requirements? (if the idea is to build something from boards, why not just build peripherals for the BUGbase?)

Anyone have an idea about the similar requirements for the BUGbase? (I couldn't find specifics about power draw nor battery lifetime; it has internal batteries and support for external batteries)

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 226358)

I care, and it's only my personal opinion that I'm elaborating on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 226358)

Are there any pre-packaged solutions for the beagleboard? What are their power and battery requirements?

Not currently, but the Beagle guys would love for you to build one. ;) 2W at 5v is about the max you'll ever use. Basically, the same power requirements as the tablets minus the screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 226358)

(if the idea is to build something from boards, why not just build peripherals for the BUGbase?)

Because the Bug uses a slow ARM11 and costs $350 just for the base.

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

I can see the price being objectionable, but I don't care about the slower speed. How fast does a router and file server really need to be? (though, I guess if you're going to use it for a game server as well, that changes things; but that's not part of my needs for such a device)

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 226363)

Depends on the purpose. Check the price of current consumer & SOHO grade routers and NAS. The NAS usually have 100 mbit, and they choke on throughput, or they're expensive. Look up Synology and Thecus.

Texrat's FP does state he's interested in a game server so resources are something to keep in mind IMO.

People do care about making a x86 device when x86 architecture makes sense. Usually, thats not the embedded market though, minus the higher end potential of Atom. (I do consider a nettop or MID embedded.) Most people don't give a rat about architecture zealotry...

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by allnameswereout (Post 226334)

(There are many x86 game servers available for Linux.)

I'm not sure how or where that comment fits into what I was discussing...?

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 226381)

I'm not sure how or where that comment fits into what I was discussing...?

Because some people who'd like to run a game server would want this functionality. You not, so you can ignore it :confused:. We all have different needs. E.g. some care for the architecture used for the project.

Re: The Case for a Pocketable Server

Quote:

Originally Posted by allnameswereout (Post 226397)

Ah. Okay. Let me qualify an earlier statement: in this thread, I'm open to all sorts of ideas that don't unfairly restrict the openness and portability requirements. Those are fundamental.

So hosting/lobbies need to rely on completely ubiquitous standards like html, css and soap. Apps should use one of the portable executables I mentioned (I am hopeful for java, eventually).