dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5571
share rss forum feed


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

home rack w/new steel-chassis EdgeRouter Lite

Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
hardware on shelves:

-Motorola SB6141
-Cisco SG100D-05 5-port Gigabit Switch
-2x silver-case PC Engines ALIX boards, models 2d2 and 3d2. the 3d2 has 1 USB 1TB HDD connected
-EdgeRouter Lite
-PC Engines APU (in black box) connected to 7-port USB3 hub, with 3 USB HDDs, 1TB 1.5TB and 2TB
-APC Back-UPS 1500
-Belkin surge protector (for non-crucial equipment)

on wall:

-Cisco SG200-08 8-port Gigabit Smart Switch
-LevelOne WAP-6011 WAP, for security cameras
-Linksys SE1500 5-port 10/100 switch for guest network

not shown:

-Cisco Aironet 1041 standalone WAP (for main network)
-Intellinet WAP (for guest network)
-Netgear GS105 for roomates room
-LevelOne WAP-6012 (for other roomates shack in backyard)

fairly proud of the ~41W of power the bulk of the stuff draws, and everything on the Belkin strip uses ~8W

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18
*drooooools*

...I gotta ask, have you measured how much noise this makes?

Regards


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
completely silent, except when the whisper-like fan kicks in on the UPS. the hard drives don't make noise now, but i imagine as they age they will begin to.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
Looks very economical


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
indeed, that was the goal. we finally have a 2-digit power bill


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
Though I'd aim to consolidate the network switches
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
how would i separate out the public net traffic coming off the modem from my internal LANs?


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
Vlans

maybe a larger version of that "smart" switch
I think the 200 line supports vlans

then you'd have one switch physically but virtually have 2 switches
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
oh word. yeah i mis-typed, the model of the 8-port is SG200-08, and it can do VLANs. but i'm out of ports on it


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

1 edit
said by train_wreck:

oh word. yeah i mis-typed, the model of the 8-port is SG200-08, and it can do VLANs. but i'm out of ports on it

Thus I said a larger one
I bet they have a 16port one that's not priced into the Ent area. (I would looks for one but unsure atm what your port counts needs would be)

but this one might do it
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···G1732738

not sure on the power draw but I would think it'd be more efficient to have a single switch as far as power goes.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
thought you meant "larger" as in higher model number.

the cheapest ones i'm seeing are ~$150, and they're TP-Links, which look kinda low-end


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
said by train_wreck:

thought you meant "larger" as in higher model number.

the cheapest ones i'm seeing are ~$150, and they're TP-Links, which look kinda low-end

Are they managed?

I meant larger as in a single switch with enough ports to replace your current switches and managed so with vlan support.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
and its fanless so it should be silent

Personally I'd lean to the POE ver but if you don't have any POE devices then nvm

with that switch you could put some ports in the Guest vlan and some in the home vlan and if you wanted its possible on some AP's to have multiple SSID's with each ssid tied to a different vlan (not sure if your AP's can do that though)

I would imagine by having even fewer devices you could lower the total power usage even more.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
i don't need poe, and the price difference is more than 2x the 16-port one.

does tp-link make decent stuff?

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Yes. Their SMB routers are decent, and they make pretty decent access points with lots of features.

pb2k

join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1
reply to train_wreck
visit »www.reddit.com/r/cableporn
fix your setup and report back


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to train_wreck
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
 
so updated a LITTLE bit, still need to work on the power bricks & the cords going up the wall next to the lamp.

oh and never posted a speed test graphic; our Comcast node is maxed out (we can't pay for anything higher than 100/20) and we never get anything past ~115.3. a little jealous of folks getting ~122 on this tier. hopefully this will change soon.
Expand your moderator at work

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
reply to train_wreck

Re: home rack w/new steel-chassis EdgeRouter Lite

nice dude, i also seen your post on ubnt forums. EdgeMax FTW!

are you running fq_codel??


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to train_wreck
Now for some Panduit cable managment


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Fryst
said by Fryst:

are you running fq_codel

i'm actually not, because according to ubiquiti enabling any kind of QoS disables hardware offloading on the device.

said by DarkLogix:

Now for some Panduit cable managment

naw that stuffs too good, i'm trying to stay wal-mart level here mayne

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications

3 edits
downloadqsetup.sh.zip 670 bytes
said by train_wreck:

i'm actually not, because according to ubiquiti enabling any kind of QoS disables hardware offloading on the device.

and u need offloading because...... ?

ERL can handle 200mbps + easy without offloading

i recommend just only using codel on your upstream, i also have a 100mbit cable connection and i dont need it for downstream for for upstream its nice

also you can keep offloading enabled. but the rules might disable it yes.

try this script

all you need to do to run it is make sure "WAN_INTF" matches yours.

throw the script in config/scripts/post-config.d

then just telnet in

"configure"
"chmod +x /config/scripts/post-config.d/qsetup.sh"
"save"
the script will run at reboot, if you dont like it, just remove it. no need to ever disable offloading, but if you do like the script its a good idea to manually disable it in order to make sure everything is working as smoothly as possible

any problems or questions plz ask. this script WILL dramatically improve your response times under load, i dont believe anything in the world has shown better results then fq_codel in combination with other queuing mechanisms

just wanna see everyone running it

also if you would like to look at the script i included without downloading it, i included it in the text below

edit: you can remove ethtool -K gr0 gso off gro off command if you like, but it wont matter.

#!/bin/bash

ethtool -K eth1 gso off gro off
ethtool -K br0 gso off gro off

WAN_INTF=eth1
WAN_UP_SPEED=21mbit

TQDISC=fq_codel

FQ_CODEL_QUANTUM_UP=300

FQ_CODEL_TARGET_UP=5ms

HTB_QUANTUM_UP=1500

TQDISC_OPTS_UP=
if [ "$TQDISC" == fq_codel ]; then
TQDISC_OPTS_UP+="quantum $FQ_CODEL_QUANTUM_UP "
TQDISC_OPTS_UP+="target $FQ_CODEL_TARGET_UP "
fi

WAN_IFB="ifb_${WAN_INTF}"
TC=/sbin/tc
IP=/sbin/ip

$TC qdisc del dev $WAN_INTF root >/dev/null 2>&1
$TC qdisc del dev $WAN_IFB root >/dev/null 2>&1

[ "$1" == clear ] && exit 0

$TC qdisc add dev $WAN_INTF root handle 1: htb default 10
$TC class add dev $WAN_INTF parent 1: classid 1:1 \
htb quantum $HTB_QUANTUM_UP \
rate $WAN_UP_SPEED ceil $WAN_UP_SPEED
$TC class add dev $WAN_INTF parent 1:1 classid 1:10 \
htb quantum $HTB_QUANTUM_UP \
rate $WAN_UP_SPEED ceil $WAN_UP_SPEED
$TC qdisc add dev $WAN_INTF parent 1:10 handle 100: $TQDISC $TQDISC_OPTS_UP

$IP link add $WAN_IFB type ifb >/dev/null 2>&1
$TC qdisc add dev $WAN_IFB root handle 1: htb default 10

$IP link set $WAN_IFB up
$TC filter add dev $WAN_INTF parent ffff: \
protocol all prio 10 u32 match u32 0 0 flowid 1:1 \
action mirred egress redirect dev $WAN_IFB


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:

said by DarkLogix:

Now for some Panduit cable managment

naw that stuffs too good, i'm trying to stay wal-mart level here mayne

How about some Cable clamps and some binder rings

»www.coxhardware.com/p-13587-cabl···Dsvw_wcB

»www.walmart.com/ip/32504232?wmls···&veh=sem

I got some binder rings at walmart and some cable clamps at homedepot

I got them for other things but ended up using the extra on my server rack (though I really should get some longer cables for my DL360G5 server, and more (need a total of 7 and only have 4 atm))
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to Fryst
said by Fryst:

and u need offloading because...... ?

I would bet offloading uses less CPU than not, and thus likely less total power, though not sure if the power diff would be measurable.

Though QOS would for sure up the CPU usage and thus the power usage.

also I'd bet his router computer can respond to packets extremely fast while in low power mode.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
Reviews:
·Yak Communications
well mine never cracks 20%

since the script is only applied to upload. the CPU usage required to download with no QOS applied is more then uploading with QOS applied

i am extremely confident the powersavings would almost be nonexistent. lol the device barely uses 10watts.

the benefit is far worth the cost

low power mode should not affect packet response times on EdgeMax line

everyone should be using fq_codel unless there network usage never exceeds 70% capacity, in which case you should be downgrading your internet.

and even belows 70% capacity, all the way down to 0 i see benefits with fq_codel+htb

also gui uses a decent amount of cpu... and i had 2 running.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsIHxLxryfk


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
Honestly I think the difference of Offload vs non-offload w/QOS as far as power goes would be more academic than measurable.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Fryst
interesting, appreciate the script. i will check out fq_codel. i had been using a combination of htb+sfq to rate-limit & balance out different traffic streams, but stopped because of the offloading thing.
though i wonder, the max speed of the device with offloading disabled is ~260-280mbps in my internal testing. while that is more than my current comcast package, i would think that CPU usage would still be higher as well? and could this not for example, be detrimental to VPN connections, which already peg the CPU at 40% at just ~17mbps?

EDIT saw the video, looks good. CPU never goes above ~20% at ~105mbps. btw, 100 down and 5 up? little unbalanced no?


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:

also I'd bet his router computer can respond to packets extremely fast while in low power mode.

oh yeah, that I-350's "offloading" would top the edgerouter. but that PC uses ~22-25W, versus ~10 with the edgerouter

Fryst

join:2014-06-30
Whistler, BC
107/5.5 sucks

want atleast 100/10