1 Nov
2005
1 Nov
'05
11:56 a.m.
This may be appropriate for another list, but it seems to me that there's
plenty of applicable knowledge here.
Right now, we're using an older Compaq Deskpro P3-600 box as our incoming
Linux server. Basically, it connects with the DSL modem and contains IP
masquerading, DNS caching, firewall and fetchmail/procmail/qmail tasks
(SpamAssassin included). It runs 24x7 with no problem, as it has for the
last 5 or 6 years. Built like a tank.
I'm wondering if something a little less power-hungry might be preferable,
however. Are there any low-power alternatives for the job that anyone can
recommend?
Cheers,
Chuck
1 Nov
1 Nov
11:09 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
This may be appropriate for another list, but it seems
to me that there's
plenty of applicable knowledge here.
Right now, we're using an older Compaq Deskpro P3-600 box as our incoming
Linux server. Basically, it connects with the DSL modem and contains IP
masquerading, DNS caching, firewall and fetchmail/procmail/qmail tasks
(SpamAssassin included). It runs 24x7 with no problem, as it has for the
last 5 or 6 years. Built like a tank.
Would an offering from one of the various UNIX vendors be a possibility?
Sun / SGI / HP or something? I'm thinking that getting away from any
kind of Intel CPU would be a good place to start, plus of course you
don't need any kind of framebuffer then either (unlike a PC) and can
just use a serial console on the (very rare) occassions when you'd need
to be physically at the machine.
Cut memory to bare minimum too as that's probably a major culprit of
current draw.
If the machine's not doing any logging to local disk then you can
eliminate the hard drive too - just boot it across the LAN on your
secure interface from another server somewhere.
Heck, something like an old Sun SPARC 20 is probably even on topic :)
cheers
Jules
12:25 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
I am playing around with networking again,
and realized I have a lot of AUI transcievers
of different types, and only one AUI hub.
Question is, can two AUI-male connecting
converters be connected together with an
appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a
hub/repeater box?
here's my notes, looks doable
any problems?
3 TX+
5 RX+
6 +12v return
10 TX-
12 RX-
13 +12v
John A.
hope I'm not messing up the terminology too much.
12:28 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
I am playing around with networking again,
and realized I have a lot of AUI transcievers
of different types, and only one AUI hub.
Question is, can two AUI-male connecting
converters be connected together with an
appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a
hub/repeater box?
Apparently you can, by crossing over TX and RX. I haven't tried this, I
only read it somewhere.
Gordon.
12:57 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
>>>> "John" == John Allain
<allain at panix.com> writes:
John> I am playing around with networking again, and realized I have
John> a lot of AUI transcievers of different types, and only one AUI
John> hub. Question is, can two AUI-male connecting converters be
John> connected together with an appropriate cabelling, like you can
John> do with RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a hub/repeater
John> box?
John> here's my notes, looks doable any problems? 3 TX+ 5 RX+ 6 +12v
John> return 10 TX- 12 RX- 13 +12v
You missed the Collision wires, and therein lies the trouble.
There are two issues.
One is that an AUI based Ethernet was half duplex (just like
10Base2). If you just cross over rx/tx you have a full duplex setup.
If the NIC is full duplex capable that MAY work, but depending on the
NIC it may not be full duplex capable.
The other issue is that 8u02.3 compliant NICs will expect the
collision signal to assert briefly after each packet. That is the
Collision Test (SQE test, see 802.3 section 8.2.2.2.4). DEC NICs, for
example, generally implement this. I *think* this is a warning, so if
the driver doesn't treat it as an error you'll probably be ok.
You said you have lots of transceivers. So why do you want crossover?
Just hook the AUIs to their coax and wire up a classic Ethernet that
way. Or did you mean AUI based NICs? (For that matter, what's an
"AUI Hub"? I know AUI repeaters, and I know AUI transceivers.)
paul
1:13 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
You missed the Collision wires, and therein lies the
trouble.
There are two issues.
One is that an AUI based Ethernet was half duplex
(just like
10Base2).
It's not entirely fair to contrast AUI and 10base2 this way, as if they
were comparable things. AUI is the interface between the host and the
transceiver; 10base2 is one of various possibilities for the medium on
the other side of the transceiver. Contrasting AUI with 10base2 is a
bit like contrasting RS-232C with POTS phone service (just as the one
applies to different sides of a transceiver, the other applies to
different sides of a modem).
The other issue is that 8u02.3 compliant NICs will
expect the
collision signal to assert briefly after each packet. That is the
Collision Test (SQE test, see 802.3 section 8.2.2.2.4).
Some will. Many don't care. I think I have even seen a few that
object if they *do* get that signal. I have some transceivers which
have switchable SQE and have done a little experimenting....
You said you have lots of transceivers. So why do you
want
crossover? Just hook the AUIs to their coax and wire up a classic
Ethernet that way.
Perhaps there's no co-ax at ready hand? If the transceivers use
10base5 this seems reasonably likely.
(For that matter, what's an "AUI Hub"?
I know AUI repeaters, and I
know AUI transceivers.)
In my experience, the term is used colloquially to refer to an AUI
multiport transceiver box, especially one that is capable of running
without a real transceiver attached. (A multiport transceiver is a
device that has multiple - typically 8 - AUI connections suitable for
connecting to hosts and one AUI connection suitable for connecting to a
real transceiver. As far as the hosts are concerned it looks like
multiple transceivers on the same medium. Some of them demand having a
real transceiver on the transceiver port; some have a switch that lets
them run without, and some of the newest auto-sense.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
4:27 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
You said you
have lots of transceivers. So why do you want
crossover? Just hook the AUIs to their coax and wire up a classic
Ethernet that way.
Perhaps there's no co-ax at ready hand? If the transceivers use 10base5 this seems reasonably likely.
It violates some bit of the spec from what I rememebr, but I've never had
any problems putting N-to-BNC acapters on 10 base 5 transceives with N
connectors on them. Or replacing the beesting with a BNC socket and
adding a T piece for that type of 10base5 transceiver.
-tony
2:03 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
You said you have lots of transceivers. So why do you
want crossover?
Modern 10bT only system to a length of 10b2 coax, and back.
Just 2 10bT/10b2's would do, but as I said everything I have is
AUI. I also have a 10bFL to AUI setup here too.
what's an "AUI Hub"? I know AUI
repeaters,
Hub =!= Repeater? Just my clumsiness
John A.
hope I'm not messing up the terminology too much.
1:12 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
Question is, can two AUI-male connecting converters be
connected
together with an appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a hub/repeater box?
I once tried to do this kind of "crossover" AUI, and never did manage
to make it work. I suspect it has something to do with AUI being a
half-duplex interface and expecting to hear on the RX wires the signal
it's transmitting on the TX wires.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
4:22 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
I am playing around with networking again,
and realized I have a lot of AUI transcievers
of different types, and only one AUI hub.
Question is, can two AUI-male connecting
converters be connected together with an
appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a
hub/repeater box?
No, AFAIK you need a repeater to handle the collisons, etc.
I have a 2 port repeater somewhere (2 female AUI connectors to link to 2
transceivers), and it's remarkably complciated inside. There's a state
machine type of thing with the state table in RAM, and a Z80 + ROM to
boot that. Probably about 50 chips all told.
-tony
4:59 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
>>>> "Tony" == Tony Duell <ard
at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I am playing around with networking again, and
realized I have a
> lot of AUI transcievers of different types, and only one AUI hub.
> Question is, can two AUI-male connecting converters be connected
> together with an appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
> RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a hub/repeater box?
Tony> No, AFAIK you need a repeater to handle the collisons, etc.
Tony> I have a 2 port repeater somewhere (2 female AUI connectors to
Tony> link to 2 transceivers), and it's remarkably complciated
Tony> inside. There's a state machine type of thing with the state
Tony> table in RAM, and a Z80 + ROM to boot that. Probably about 50
Tony> chips all told.
Sounds like a DEREP, which I think is the first Ethernet repeater.
DEC box, roughly the size of the 3U routers of the time.
State machine with lots of discrete components sounds about right.
Z80 to boot it is puzzling, what is there to boot? DEREPs were not
manageable, you just turn them on and they would work.
paul
8:58 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
Tony> I have a 2 port repeater somewhere (2 female
AUI connectors to
Tony> link to 2 transceivers), and it's remarkably complciated
Tony> inside. There's a state machine type of thing with the state
Tony> table in RAM, and a Z80 + ROM to boot that. Probably about 50
Tony> chips all told.
Sounds like a DEREP, which I think is the first Ethernet repeater.
DEC box, roughly the size of the 3U routers of the time.
No, it's not a DEC product. I forget who did make it (something is saying
'BICC networks') thought. From what I rememebr, it's a 2U case, could be
rackmounted. There's one PCB flat inside, and a little SMPSU box.
State machine with lots of discrete components sounds about right.
Z80 to boot it is puzzling, what is there to boot? DEREPs were not
OK, maybe 'boot' is the wrong word. I meant to load the state machine
RAM.
manageable, you just turn them on and they would work.
-tony
5:43 p.m.
New subject: AUI crossover?
I am playing around with networking again,
and realized I have a lot of AUI transcievers
of different types, and only one AUI hub.
Question is, can two AUI-male connecting
converters be connected together with an
appropriate cabelling, like you can do with
RJ45/10bT, or must a person always use a
hub/repeater box?
AUI->10bT media converters have been falling from the sky like rain here, as
have 10bT hubs and switches. (That means less than a few buck per
interface). Cat-3/4/5/5e/[6/7] is a whole lot less expensive than the the
AUI quad STP cables and quite possibly cheaper than RG58. I tend to covert
to 10[00]bT at the device and have a hub or switch per room with uplink to
the main switch. The only exception is 10b2 which I run native to hubs with
BNC uplink ports. Fortunately I haven't yet needed to deal with thicknet in
the house...
Eric
12:56 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
I would suggest the RS/6000 B50.
Peace... Sridhar
This may be
appropriate for another list, but it seems to me that there's
plenty of applicable knowledge here.
Right now, we're using an older Compaq Deskpro P3-600 box as our incoming
Linux server. Basically, it connects with the DSL modem and contains IP
masquerading, DNS caching, firewall and fetchmail/procmail/qmail tasks
(SpamAssassin included). It runs 24x7 with no problem, as it has for the
last 5 or 6 years. Built like a tank.
Would an offering from one of the various UNIX vendors be a possibility?
Sun / SGI / HP or something? I'm thinking that getting away from any
kind of Intel CPU would be a good place to start, plus of course you
don't need any kind of framebuffer then either (unlike a PC) and can
just use a serial console on the (very rare) occassions when you'd need
to be physically at the machine. 
4:20 p.m.
At 12:56 PM -0500 11/1/05, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I would suggest the RS/6000 B50.
How much power does that use?
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3 Nov
3 Nov
3:43 a.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:20:24 -0800
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
IIRC I measured my B50 at
around 50 W.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
I would suggest
the RS/6000 B50.
How much power does that use?
1 Nov
1 Nov
12:45 p.m.
>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Chuck> This may be appropriate for another list, but it seems to me
Chuck> that there's plenty of applicable knowledge here.
Chuck> Right now, we're using an older Compaq Deskpro P3-600 box as
Chuck> our incoming Linux server. Basically, it connects with the
Chuck> DSL modem and contains IP masquerading, DNS caching, firewall
Chuck> and fetchmail/procmail/qmail tasks (SpamAssassin included).
Chuck> It runs 24x7 with no problem, as it has for the last 5 or 6
Chuck> years. Built like a tank.
Chuck> I'm wondering if something a little less power-hungry might be
Chuck> preferable, however. Are there any low-power alternatives for
Chuck> the job that anyone can recommend?
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
paul
1:17 p.m.
On 11/1/2005 at 12:45 PM Paul Koning wrote:
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
Interesting idea, but I don't have a lot of faith in a laptop holding up
under a 24x7x365 operating schedule. They're not built for that type of
operation and I think that heat buildup would eventually do them in.
--Chuck
1:47 p.m.
Rumor has it that Chuck Guzis may have mentioned these words:
On 11/1/2005 at 12:45 PM Paul Koning wrote:
Depends on the age/build quality of said laptop. There are a lot of
low-power laptops that don't get too hot with 100% duty cycles, my Fujitsu
Lifebook P2120 (933 Mhz Crusoe / 512Meg RAM) is certainly fine with it -
sits *comfortably* on my lap whilst recompiling Linux.
[[ Yea, the whole Linux, glibc, gcc, all libraries, X, etc. ;-) ]]
While kewl [[ and somewhat unique, now that Transmeta quit makin' CPUs :-(
]] certainly offtopic.
I think there are some ontopic Panasonic Toughbooks which should be able to
handle anything, but wouldn't be fast enough for your needs.
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
Interesting idea, but I don't have a lot of faith in a laptop holding up
under a 24x7x365 operating schedule. They're not built for that type of
operation and I think that heat buildup would eventually do them in.
Again, some are. Some are designed to wick away that heat thru the
operator's legs, :-) but the CPU should be fine, as long as the fan works
fine & the cooling grates are clear. For your setup, I doubt the CPU is the
bottleneck anyway, unless your SpamAssassin is getting hit *hard*, and if
it is, you should be looking for quite a bit more of an upgrade than what
you have now.
I wouldn't try it with just 'any' laptop, but a little research first
should find several models of laptop that could /potentially/ suit your needs.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch at 30below.com
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
9:14 p.m.
On 11/1/05 1:17 PM, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 11/1/2005 at 12:45 PM Paul Koning wrote:
I've got an Omnibook 6100 running Win2k3 for a router/dns box (cellular
connection), and it's got a 73 day uptime since a service pack 1 reboot =]
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
Interesting idea, but I don't have a lot of faith in a laptop holding up
under a 24x7x365 operating schedule. They're not built for that type of
operation and I think that heat buildup would eventually do them in.
--Chuck
4:33 p.m.
At 8:56 AM -0800 11/1/05, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I'm wondering if something a little less
power-hungry might be preferable,
however. Are there any low-power alternatives for the job that anyone can
recommend?
A VIA Mini-ITX system is the best choice, they might not have a lot
of CPU power, but it's hard to beat them on power consumption. A
good second choice would probably be a Pentium M based system
(they're starting to become available in something other than
laptops).
At 12:45 PM -0500 11/1/05, Paul Koning wrote:
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
I'd be concerned with reliability. This is something that has to run 24x7.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Would an offering from one of the various UNIX vendors
be a
possibility? Sun / SGI / HP or something? I'm thinking that getting
away from any kind of Intel CPU would be a good place to start, plus
of course you don't need any kind of framebuffer then either (unlike
a PC) and can just use a serial console on the (very rare)
occassions when you'd need to be physically at the machine.
Do any of them offer anything that is low power? As for not needing
any kind of framebuffer, under OpenBSD I don't really need it with
the HP Pentium III system I'm using. Though it was a bit worrisome
the other night when there was nothing on the console and it took
forever to come up (it was fsck'ing the disk as the power had gone
out).
Noise is the real reason I'm using the Pentium III, it's a *LOT*
quieter than the SparcServer 5/110 that I was using. The Sparc was
louder than the two 3-drive JBOD boxes running 10k RPM SCSI drives
sitting above it (they're hooked to an OpenVMS server).
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3:43 p.m.
At 8:56 AM -0800 11/1/05, Chuck Guzis wrote:
ITX by VIA is GOOD. Get everything to start off on one board except
memory, drive(s), case and power supply.
Remember, ITX mounting points and ATX power supply plug are same for
microATX, ATX cases so use one locally and put ITX in it.
Alteratively, any PIII socket 370 running 133 bus have some spunk.
PIII 533/133 cpu is 14W. Cooler than a Pentium 233mmx that rated at
17W.
There is a link that details many CPUs for power consumpation
ratings, warning: it is a looong web, all text, no graphics, give it
a minute to load.
http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
Cheers, Wizard
I'm wondering if something a little less
power-hungry might be preferable,
however. Are there any low-power alternatives for the job that anyone can
recommend?
A VIA Mini-ITX system is the best choice, they might not have a lot
of CPU power, but it's hard to beat them on power consumption. A
good second choice would probably be a Pentium M based system
(they're starting to become available in something other than
laptops).
At 12:45 PM -0500 11/1/05, Paul Koning wrote:
How about an old laptop? UPS built-in... :-)
I'd be concerned with reliability. This is something that has to run 24x7.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Would an offering from one of the various UNIX
vendors be a
possibility? Sun / SGI / HP or something? I'm thinking that getting
away from any kind of Intel CPU would be a good place to start, plus
of course you don't need any kind of framebuffer then either (unlike
a PC) and can just use a serial console on the (very rare)
occassions when you'd need to be physically at the machine.
Do any of them offer anything that is low power? As for not needing
any kind of framebuffer, under OpenBSD I don't really need it with
the HP Pentium III system I'm using. Though it was a bit worrisome
the other night when there was nothing on the console and it took
forever to come up (it was fsck'ing the disk as the power had gone
out).
Noise is the real reason I'm using the Pentium III, it's a *LOT*
quieter than the SparcServer 5/110 that I was using. The Sparc was
louder than the two 3-drive JBOD boxes running 10k RPM SCSI drives
sitting above it (they're hooked to an OpenVMS server).
Zane
4:57 p.m.
>>>> "Zane" == Zane H Healy
<healyzh at aracnet.com> writes:
Zane> Jules Richardson wrote:
> Would an offering from one of the various UNIX
vendors be a
> possibility? Sun / SGI / HP or something? I'm thinking that
> getting away from any kind of Intel CPU would be a good place to
> start, plus of course you don't need any kind of framebuffer then
> either (unlike a PC) and can just use a serial console on the
> (very rare) occassions when you'd need to be physically at the
> machine.
Zane> Do any of them offer anything that is low power?
At one time I was planning to take my StrongArm 110 eval board and
make it do something like this. That certainly should be low power.
Hm. I wonder if a PDA with a flashdisk would serve... :-)
paul
3 Nov
3 Nov
3:48 a.m.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:56:25 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
I'm wondering if something a little less
power-hungry might be
preferable, however. Are there any low-power alternatives for the job
that anyone can recommend?
Motorola PowerStack II. 300 MHz PPC 604e, without disks
40 W.
An old SPARC like an IPX or SS5 is good to at saving power too, but
SpamAssassin will kill it.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
6836
days inactive
6838
days old
23 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
allain＠panix.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
mokuba＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
zmerch＠30below.com