low-power x86 computer

I'm having such a system. Runnning Linux, it consumes less than 8 Watt including the disk, but running Win2k pro it consumes 42Watts. There might be some unfortunate setting though. Since I'm running Linux, I didn't investigate any further. It might be different implementation of the idle task.

Rene

--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Using the JK micro Thin Client (VIA Eden 533+ JK micro Aux board) with Win98se idling draws about 14-15 watts. That's with 12 volts in and running Win98 off of a compact flash. I suspect that's about the best you can do. Heavy screen redraws increase power consumption considerably. A hard drive and/or CD-ROM will increase your power proportionally.

I have a standard PC which originally used a VIA 800 MHz cpu. It ran so cool that the minimal heat sink and fan kept the measured temp (on motherboard sensor) at about 1-2C above ambient. I even tried unconnecting the fan on the heat sink and letting the slower power supply fan draw a bit of air through the cabinet and the CPU never got over 60C. In fact, it made a 5C difference whether the case was standing up or laying down!

I did not measure the power, but I was running Win2k and I seriously doubt that the system used much over 15 Watts. The memory sticks will use a couple of watts and the HDD will use power depending on how hard to bang on it. I seem to recall that the slower 5200 RPM HDDs run at about 5 Watts or less. The faster ones use significantly more power of course. Solid state Flash drives are even lower in power.

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:11:56 +0100, "Joris Dobbelsteen" wrote in comp.arch.embedded:

This is not going to be connected to the Internet, is it? Putting a router running any version of Windows on the Internet almost certainly mean it will be infected by some virus or worm very quickly.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

FTP,

Via

Have you considered running Linux, or even one of the BSDs? You might have good reasons for picking windows, but in case you haven't thought about your choices...

You will be able to get a linux system acting as a firewall, router and simple server for a fraction of the price and power of a Windows-based system. If you don't need much file storage space for the servers, you could get it running from a 16M compact flash card, or something similar, for very much lower power (alternatively, your hard drive would be powered-down most of the time). Your hardware costs would be lower (far less memory and cpu power required, no need for a display, mouse or keyboard), your software costs would be lower (W2K or W2K3 is going to cost more than your hardware - you also avoid worrying about "client access licenses"), and your system will be vastly more secure and reliable (assuming it is configured reasonably well, of course). If you haven't any experiance with linux, then you will have to do a bit of reading of how-tos, but then, if you haven't the experiance of hardening W2K for a firewall/router than you'll have more than enough work there too. Post at comp.os.linux.networking for useful information about setting up such a system, or to comp.os.linux.advocacy for a sometimes entertaining flame war about the rational and irrational reasons for choosing between OSes.

have

your

I'd recommend OpenBSD

Works fine on minimal hardware (including 486-class machines). Effectively bulletproof; more so than Linux. Easy(ish) to learn. *Much* lower maintenance than M$ servers.

I personally would only use Windows-anything for clients, and then only behind one or more hardware firewalls. YMMV, but I'd be surprised ;).

Steve

If we leave your last point to one side for a moment, the best match to your first two points is a Geode-based system. Figure 5V @ 2.0A nominal including hard disk. Peak (HDD spinup) will be about 3.5A but this is momentary.

If you need more performance, look at the Eden-based 3.5" SBCs, e.g. e-valuetech EBC3610 or Advantech PCM-9375. They are somewhat more energy-efficient, clock for clock, than the Epia motherboards. They also run off a single 5V rail.

But I do agree with other posts that Windows is not a good choice for this application unless you have some very specific requirement ("must run Windows applications" is really the only acceptable one).

Thank you all for your advice...

Indeed did Linux/xBSD cross my mind, however:

It will run in a sole testing (not production) setup (reglect the software cost for now). Some demands to put up:

1) perform as a NAT router (transparant) 2) customizable packet filter (in/out) 3) running FTP (I really dislike this insecure stuff, maybe HTTP, which works worse for file sharing) 4) transparant proxy server (catch all port 80 traffic traveling through) 5) proxy must ban several sites, configured globally in the domain (ISA server). 6) Capable of VPN, with authentication from the existing W2K domain. There is no Radius server to serve this server... 7) Actually running the domain (There will be a second DC, but its not always on, so this must be the PDC. Never mind security here, it can be done good enough) 8) Terminal must be accessible, you must be able to run some simpler apps on it (downloading stuff and such).

With the current Microsoft software this works...

With Linux/BSD your obviously can statisfy 1,2,3,8 I'm pretty sure (but not certain) you can 4

It should integrate with MS-Active Directory. I don't know of a proxy getting the blocked lists of the server, coming to demand 5. This list is getting quite comprohensive and updates rather frequently..

Now the issues are 7 and 6, where 6 will be needed for a more secure remote terminal. I'm not willing to keep syncing my passwords and doing double administration just to get it working...

If these can be solved, I will see whether Linux or BSD will work.

- Joris

OpenBSD is strong on this - the new(ish) pf system controls both NATing and packet filtering in a very sane way.

OpenBSD: it'll do FTP serving, as well as SSH and rsync. For fileserving there's samba.

OpenBSD: squid etc.

Not sure that I understand the requirement. If you just want to ban access to certain sites, there are various ways of achieving this, including filtering and squid configuration.

OpenBSD: VPN should be no problem. Not sure about the Win2k authentication, but so long as it's RFC-based (and not an M$ extension), should be fine.

done

Err... do you mean nameserving? If so bind9 on OpenBSD is industry-standard.

on

OpenBSD: again SSH.

Don't know. Again if it's M$-specific, you're out of luck with anything other than M$ products in most cases. Is MS-Active Directory anything to do with LDAP?

Hope this helps - the FAQ at

is pretty comprehensive if you need more data.

Steve

Yes, try SQUID (open source proxy-cache, it works for us till 1998 with more than 100 workstations, on a P2/300)

this is your choice ! So don't blame Linux or BSD or Solaris or QNX (or any other operating system) if interoperability is bad.

Microsoft only works with Microsoft : they just want you to buy more and more proprietary products. You works with only one supplier. It's not a good idea to get the best performance/cost ratio.

Regards Emmanuel.

and

through)

The proxy/firewall blocks several sites which shows advertisement/popups and such other messy stuff. It also blocks some potentionally harmfull sites (install ). These are currently configured for several

There

authentication,

industry-standard.

Nope, just authentication through the Windows 2000/2003 Domain Controller. Perhaps even certificate-based. Current passwords are stored into the domain controller running Windows 2003. I must actually perform authentication for the Windows clients on the network...

apps

Yeah, X(Windows). I want graphics, not text.

is

do

comprehensive

and

Oh, ok. As I said, many ways of doing this. I normally just block the IP with pf (packet filter).

domain

Hmmm... if you're talking about network access (file sharing), then Samba handles net access authentication just fine.

OpenBSD handles X fine. KDE is available from the ports tree if you want a window manager and the usual collection of GUI goodies.

As an example, my home server here is OpenBSD-current (3.4) and does: - NATing and firewalling/packet filtering/normalisation using pf - networking/filesharing using Samba - web proxy using Squid (although I've now turned this off since I have a fast enough BB connection that caching was becoming an unnecessary nuisance) - ftp serving - intranet web serving (including SSL and auth) using Apache - database centralisation using PHP/MySQL - mail centralisation using sendmail, fetchmail, cucipop and IMAP (and LDAP address book once I figure out configuration ;)) - remote server backup using rsync - local nameserving using bind - CD collection centralisation using Apache::MP3 (yay! my kids don't nick my CDs any more!) - terminal: X with KDE locally, or shell via SSH remotely - etc etc etc

I've only recently upgraded from an MMX200 CPU-based mobo, and then only because I wanted to play with X and KDE. My commercial (public) webservers likewise run OpenBSD - originally installed back in '99, and upgraded once or twice, they've been ridiculously trouble-free.

Steve

Controller.

He's talking about something that Linux is not equipped to do, yet. Windows NT/2K/20003 Domain Authentication. You would had to have spent some time in the Windows world to understand that this requirement rules anything but Windows out. There are specifi responsibilities placed on a PCD (Primary Domain Controller) and a BDC (Backup Domain Controller).

a

nuisance)

nick

FTP,

Via

Gotta love lock-in via proprietary protocols; but Samba has had this capability for a few years now, since 2001, IIRC. Though Active Directory is still, I believe, experimental; same with kerberos.

See chapter 4 of "Using Samba, 2nd Ed."

(look for the Online Book). Chapters 4-6 of Terptra's book: (search for Terpstra). and chapter 5 of the "Samba HOWTO":

John

Can anyone point me to some numbers on perf/power for xScale, ARM, via, x86, etc.?

John

advertisement/popups

sites

IP

Samba

Windows

in

Thanks John, I stand corrected, though I don't believe I'd choose it, at least it's an option. Until now the most I've seen it do is simple file sharing. And their site does outline, as you did, that it isn't a drop in replacement for a true Windows DC if Active Directory is a concern.

Running my own Windows and Linux servers I can say that it is often a challenge to get different versions of Windows to work together well, let alone a totally different solution. But it is an option for more than simple sharing that I wasn't aware of.

do a search on google for a Sun/IBM (dont remember) "Using Samba as a primary domain controller" :)

Pozdrawiam.

--
RusH   //
 http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

which

ftp can be secure if you use a secure ftp server on a secure OS and configure it properly - just make sure you choose your server carefully, and read up on how to configure it safely.

(ISA

access

and

That should be perfectly possible with squid or using apache (which can also do proxying), but you'll have to check for details.

Note - for all these uses, OpenBSD or pretty much any Linux distribution will have the same key apps available, so you have a wide choice. Even if you stick to windows, many of the open-source apps are available for windows too - for example, you should use apache as a web server rather than IIS.

be

domain

Look at the samba web site and see if it can handle your needs. It certainly has no problem authenticating through a windows domain controller, and can act as an NT4 domain controller itself, but I'm not sure if it can act as a complete W2K domain controller.

What do you want graphical access to a server for? That is part of why Linux/OpenBSD is so much better suited to this sort of use on small systems, as it does not have the overhead of a gui. What is of far more use, however, is something like webconfig (and friends like swat for samba) that provide a nice web-based gui for configuration - let the client pc (windows, linux, or whatever) browser handle the gui. I don't know what sort of web-based configuration tools are available for OpenBSD, but I presume they are similar.

If you really want remote access to a gui on the server, then use vnc. Think of it vaguely like windows terminal server - as many clients as you want can log into the box using vnc (clients available for almost every platform), and each gets a nice X desktop of his/her choice. You don't even need a graphics card on the server.