A couple points:
1) While the basic hardware on the router you mention is a broadcom board that is supported by Gargoyle, you may have trouble getting wireless N connectivity. I would be surprised if you get anything better than wireless G performance (and you may get nothing). Even more important, I don't know what sort of bootloader is being used here, so you're on your own figuring out how to best install Gargoyle.
2) Above DoesItMatter mentions "Gargoyle should run on any router
that OpenWRT 8.09 branch supports.", which is theoretically true... but it is optimized for brcm-2.4 and atheros chips. You may need to get your hands dirty (i.e. mess with the code and compile for yourself) if you want to get anything else running.
?which router to test next?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: ?which router to test next?
From info currently available (to be confirmed visually) it already runs 2.6.2x (notsure which .2x), not 2.4.xx, and OpenWrt's Kamikaze 8.09.1 (stable release) brcm47xxx's Platform is suitable. Also the system is under the GPL V2 Licence with Source code of Firmware versions 9.9.3.7 (prerelease) and 1.0.0.6 (current) as well as it's drivers are available via AsusTech's website. A further release is apparently already in Beta Field trials with some of the changes/additions from requests from the users. Having dealt with ASUSTech before, I have found that they are very Linux User friendly, as long as you don't try any level of standover type tactics.
?Is Gargoyle is not currently using 8.09.1? I thought it was on the current Stable stream? Release notes for 8.09 to 8.09.1 can be found here (http://downloads.openwrt.org/kamikaze/8 ... elease.txt). Especially as 8.09.02 is already at RC2, being Field Tested now and is suppose to be on track to be fully released before Christmas 2009.
regards
scsijon
?Is Gargoyle is not currently using 8.09.1? I thought it was on the current Stable stream? Release notes for 8.09 to 8.09.1 can be found here (http://downloads.openwrt.org/kamikaze/8 ... elease.txt). Especially as 8.09.02 is already at RC2, being Field Tested now and is suppose to be on track to be fully released before Christmas 2009.
regards
scsijon
Re: ?which router to test next?
Gargoyle uses the 8.09 branch. That means it is already using code newer than 8.09.1, which is a tagged release.
Re: ?which router to test next?
Sorry Eric, didn't mean to ruffle feathers, just didn't understand that, and are still not sure I completely do. So can you tell me where I should be getting my OpenWrt from, ?Your system or one of the the OpenWrt prebuilds or their SVN, just point me if there is a message already covering this.Eric wrote:Gargoyle uses the 8.09 branch. That means it is already using code newer than 8.09.1, which is a tagged release.
Having chased through rejected machine after machine, (went through a list of 47 in total by the end,) to finally find one suitable and convertable, I thing i'm having a brainstorm.
I think it best that I should have a day or two away from this project and start looking at it again friday.
regards
scsijon
ps, and I still live by my prophesy.
Re: ?which router to test next?
You didn't ruffle my feathers... I just kept my response brief to avoid typing more than I need to. Less time on forum = more development time
You ask where to get the code. You should be downloading the Gargoyle code from SVN (see downloads) which will automatically download the necessary OpenWrt source code.
I may have a solution to your problem provided that:
1) You are satisfied with wireless G performance (Gargoyle does not currently support any wireless N device)
2) You're willing to accept the fact that you need to create a makeshift case yourself. The board I'm thinking of does not have any case designed for it. However one company is working to create one, which (according to their site) should be on sale within a month.
3) You are ok with only 3 Gigabit LAN ports, instead of 4 (the board has 1 Gigabit WAN port, 3 LAN ports)
4) You are comfortable with compiling Gargoyle from scratch
If that works for you... the Ubiquiti Routerstation Pro, with an atheros mini-pci card is your answer. It's the closest fit I know of to your requirements.
You ask where to get the code. You should be downloading the Gargoyle code from SVN (see downloads) which will automatically download the necessary OpenWrt source code.
I may have a solution to your problem provided that:
1) You are satisfied with wireless G performance (Gargoyle does not currently support any wireless N device)
2) You're willing to accept the fact that you need to create a makeshift case yourself. The board I'm thinking of does not have any case designed for it. However one company is working to create one, which (according to their site) should be on sale within a month.
3) You are ok with only 3 Gigabit LAN ports, instead of 4 (the board has 1 Gigabit WAN port, 3 LAN ports)
4) You are comfortable with compiling Gargoyle from scratch
If that works for you... the Ubiquiti Routerstation Pro, with an atheros mini-pci card is your answer. It's the closest fit I know of to your requirements.
Re: ?which router to test next?
Eric wrote:You didn't ruffle my feathers... I just kept my response brief to avoid typing more than I need to. Less time on forum = more development time
You ask where to get the code. You should be downloading the Gargoyle code from SVN (see downloads) which will automatically download the necessary OpenWrt source code.
I may have a solution to your problem provided that:
1) You are satisfied with wireless G performance (Gargoyle does not currently support any wireless N device)
2) You're willing to accept the fact that you need to create a makeshift case yourself. The board I'm thinking of does not have any case designed for it. However one company is working to create one, which (according to their site) should be on sale within a month.
3) You are ok with only 3 Gigabit LAN ports, instead of 4 (the board has 1 Gigabit WAN port, 3 LAN ports)
4) You are comfortable with compiling Gargoyle from scratch
If that works for you... the Ubiquiti Routerstation Pro, with an atheros mini-pci card is your answer. It's the closest fit I know of to your requirements.
ok, thanks,
however, your point 1 above is a bit of a showstopper.
I thought Gargoyle ran over anything as an OpenWrt shell? Maybe i'd best download some sourcecode and see how things are done.I'll have a look at the Ubiquiti anyway.
regards
scsijon
Re: ?which router to test next?
Just to be clear... there's a good reason Gargoyle isn't supporting wireless N devices right now. It's not that I've decided I just don't care about wireless N. The problem is that there is exactly one open-source wireless N driver that I know of -- ath9k -- and I'm concerned that it's still not particularly reliable/stable. All other drivers are proprietary, i.e. closed source.
You know all those companies saying "hey we have a router that runs open source/openwrt?" Well, what they're doing is taking openwrt, which is open source, and then throwing in a proprietary driver on top of it. None of them are actually contributing to open source. The important thing is the driver... and they're all closed source.
Sure, I could try to incorporate the closed source binary drivers. But... I've spent the last week dealing with an issue in the proprietary broadcom driver, which I can't do a damn thing about, because it's just a huge, incomprehensible binary. The only reason the broadcom driver is closed source and still around is because it was the first one included in openwrt, so support is required for historical reasons. Hopefully, the open-source alternative will be ready for prime time soon, because closed source drivers suck.
You know all those companies saying "hey we have a router that runs open source/openwrt?" Well, what they're doing is taking openwrt, which is open source, and then throwing in a proprietary driver on top of it. None of them are actually contributing to open source. The important thing is the driver... and they're all closed source.
Sure, I could try to incorporate the closed source binary drivers. But... I've spent the last week dealing with an issue in the proprietary broadcom driver, which I can't do a damn thing about, because it's just a huge, incomprehensible binary. The only reason the broadcom driver is closed source and still around is because it was the first one included in openwrt, so support is required for historical reasons. Hopefully, the open-source alternative will be ready for prime time soon, because closed source drivers suck.