Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire
A user writes, "Apple has finally released IP over FireWire drivers for Mac OS X. It is now possible to connect two or more Macs together with FireWire cables and if needed, FireWire hubs."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Jeez, the MPAA was already upset about IP over Ethernet. This'll drive them up the wall.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Does firewire offer any advantages over gigabit ethernet for building compute clusters?
Heh, don't get me wrong, but the idea of using a cable as a network medium is older than Windows.
Ethernet, serial cables, RS-232, SCSI..
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I've been using FireWire Target Disk Mode for transferring large files from my PowerBook G4 (original release, didn't include Gigabit Ethernet) to my desktop system. Finally I no l longer have to shut down the machine to sync them up, now if only they get AppleTalk working...
Way to go with your innovate thinking. Apple is one of the major companies behind firewire, and they have been working on the standard for years. I seem to recall finding early references to firewire going back to 1995. So if Apple comes up with a standard, which Microsoft then implements before them, thats Microsoft innovating?
I can't make up my mind as to whether you are trolling, or just poorly informed.
Currently you can connect most Macs together by a crossover Ethernet cable for networking. Alternatively, if you just need to move something between two boxes, you can use a FireWire cable and mount another hard drive with Target Disk Mode (which someone noted earlier).
So IP over FireWire adds to the diversity. Today, you don't even need a crossover cable with the Gigabit Ethernet ports on most Macs. Just use a regular CAT5 to connect them.
Having this option, from my techie POV, allows me to connect to another Mac should the user's Ethernet port go cranky. I'd have to think a little more for additional applications, but perhaps a cheap, high speed FireWire LAN for gaming or small home networks would be useful. I would think you can share a cable modem connection in this manner, too. I better RTFdocs.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I've been using IP on 1394 from my desktop box to my Sony laptop. I just bridge my ethernet and firewire NICs on my desktop PC, and the Sony has an Internet connection over Firewire (which they call "i.Link"). It works great. Theoretically, I should be seeing four times the bandwidth on the 1394 link than I see with 100 Ethernet, but in reality it's not that big of a difference. As people are saying about gig-ethernet, other things, like the PCI bus, start to be limiting factors.
When we've got faster Firewire, like 800-1600 Mbit, this will make a huge difference. Instead of Investing in expensive Gigabit-Ethernet switches and cables, just use Firewire instead. Maybe not the ideal solution for all, but for small companies and Lan-parties =) this could be great.
another advatage i see to this would be using the FireWire port as a second ethernet device. You could connect your mac to two seperate networks allowing "secure" communication through one card and standard communication through the other. If you already have a FireWire port why add a second NIC card... which might not be possible in a portable.
I know this is for OS X, and the OS on the iPod is different, but what about using IP-over-Firewire for IP synching of iPods?
IP Over Firewire is not the new localtalk. IP Over Firewire is not the new localtalk. IP Over Firewire is not... oh the hell with it.
Why do I see the little daisy chain boxes showing up in schools again?
(But you see Mr. School administrator with shrinking funds, you don't need to buy a hub or switch, we've got that covered.)
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
How do you connect it to an ethernet switch or hub? Or is this strictly for FW to FW connectins?
Any ideas?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Actually you can use normal cat5 cable to connect any modern Mac and dont have to use a crossover cable. Works for example on my iBook 500 which doesnt have Gigabit Ethernet... It even works when i connect my iBook to a PC! Thats one of the little nice details which make Macs attracting more on more of my computer science student fellows...
Beo--oh nevermind. It's a tired old joke, even if it's appropriate here. :)
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
No I do believe iLink that Sony adapted from Apple's Firewire and developed for XP is the skillful use, not Microsoft since afterall, Firewire is an "add-on" by 3rd parties and hence the sole responsibility of the 3rd party, not Microsoft.
Someone could correct me and I'd be more the wiser.
Apple since it has Firewire built-into OS X wasn't about to do IP over Firewire until they sorted out all the "critical needs" first for Mac Users. Adding a kernel extension tells me its been in the testing stage for quite some time but relinquished as unimportant until now when Apple's Digital Lifestyle devices become more of a reality to market.
Steve likes to have all his ducks-in-a-row before dazzling the crowds.
The cost of 6-PIN to 6-PIN Firewire cables would break any school's budget
A local electronic parts shop, specializing in connectors and cabling, is selling 6-pin firewire cables for US$1 a foot. Since the computers would be daisy chained that's typically what, $5-10 per computer on average?
hmm. I installed it on my powerbook, but it had the annoying side effect of deleting all my network settings. (all of my "locations" are gone in the Network preference pane, had to set them up again)
I've filed a bug report with Apple. Hopefully it was just some oddity with my machine.
-- Tim Buchheim
...and they'll need IP over firewire so that they can use Rendezvous to connect to Philip's up and coming devices.
e.g. you'll be able to control your tv via firewire, or you'll be able to record TV on your mac.
I just tried it here and its slightly worse than fast ethernet. Probably due to its prerelease status... No doubt its cool stuff though the performance is very erratic.
Why not? This is just TCP/IP, right? as long as the hardware will connect why wouldn't it treat it like any other connection using IP?
I'd like to hear about using IP over firwire for clustering purposes, are there any advantages besides price? does Firewire/1394 use a different bus or i/o than ethernet and could this increase overall throughput or decrease latency issues when clustering?
;-p
I mean jeez what better way to set up a beowul....
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
They stated that in a fashion that is, at best, a bit confusing. This draft specification for the SCSI architectural model shows on page 10 a diagram showing that there are several interconnect layers for SCSI, including the classic parallel SCSI bus (SPI), and three count 'em three serial layers, namely Fibre Channel (FC-PH), FireWire ("IEEE 1394 High Performance Serial Bus"), and IBM SSA (SSA-PH), with each interconnect layer having a protocol used to implement SCSI on that layer.
Then there are the SCSI commands, which are mostly if not entirely independent of the interconnect layer and protocol. They can be sent over parallel SCSI, Fibre Channel+FCP, FireWire+SBP, SSA-PH+SSP, {pick your link layer}+IP+TCP+iSCSI, Ethernet+HyperSCSI, or the Serial ATA link layer+serial attached SCSI, and, apparently USB+some way of sending SCSI commands over USB. (There certainly don't seem to be many bit-serial links over which you can send SCSI commands and replies.... :-))
FireWire isn't "SCSI", it's an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies. It's also an interconnect over which you can send stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, e.g. IP datagrams (we ignore here the possiblity of IP datagrams containing TCP segments that make up iSCSI PDUs :-)), just as Fibre Channel is an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, e.g. IP datagrams, and just as USB is an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, including network packets.
Here is a slightly bulked up version of my submission for this story:
Ok first, the official name used to be IEEE-1394, but not surprisingly, eventually they decided to just go with FireWire (which was previously an Apple-only name for the technology). Current version is 1394a which tops out at 400 Mbps, next is 1394b which starts at 800 Mbps.
Apple has been a strong proponent and developer of the technology. Sony also (they like to call it i.Link) Mostly it is used to connect to DV cams, but you can also use it for other peripherals that need high speed. I use it for my external hard drive and an external CD burner. But of course, you could also in theory use it for networking. Hence, IP-over-FireWire (as compared to say, the current IP-over-Ethernet). The standard specifying this is RFC 2734. (To be very technical, this only specifies the IPv4 implementation.)
Microsoft supports 1394 and in particular had an IP1394 stack for a while, in ME and now in XP. The Linux 1394 project has been working on it, but it had a lot of trouble getting off the ground. And now (finally) IP1394 is available from Apple.
It will be interesting to see if the Apple implementation interoperates with the Microsoft one.
My Master's project is on this topic. My school page is sadly out-of-date, I need to update it ASAP.
I've been testing the FireWire networking software solution from ...it supports other protocols as well. I'm looking forward to
e w_photo.php?s et_albumName=Stuff-
:)
t .htm ]
UniBrain. Unibrain's solution, by the way, provides for more than just
I.P.
having Firewire networking built into OS X. More choices are good. I'm
wondering if this indicates a move towards next generation 800mbps
Firewire, by Apple, as well.
On my Mac, Firewire networking software provides two more ports similar
to built-in ethernet, and treats them the same in the network panel in
OS X. They show up as two additional ethernet adapters. What I'm really
looking for is the same capability under Linux, so I can connect two
computers using firewire networking...OS X and Mandrake Linux 9.0. So
far, only custom Linux kernals built for clustering offer this ability.
[
http://kenlinux.no-ip.org/gallery/vi
01&id=net01 ]
Theoretically, I can dual mode the two firewire channels in my
computers to run at 800Mbps (channel bonding). Of course, gigabit
ethernet would provide increased speed, but it would also involve
buying more hardware, at least in my case. Like we say "...run what ya
'brung..." If your hardware provides gigabit ethernet, use it
Distance between nodes is a problem for Firewire networking. Maximum
distance is about 15 feet without repeaters, etc. At this time,
Firewire hubs cost approx. the same as ethernet hubs. Note I don't
think that all Firewire hubs offer similar capability/compatibility.
Test before you buy.
Don't forget Apple's Firewire target disc mode if you simply want to
pass files between two computers in a hurry.
Here is a quick little generic Firewire networking guide:
[ http://www.homenethelp.com/network/firewire.asp ]
Unibrain:
[ http://www.unibrain.com/products/ieee-1394/firene
(If you don't qualify as an Apple Developer, but you still wish to take
a look at OS X Firewire networking, Unibrain has a timed demo available
for testing)
Also note that firewire networking is currently a part of Windows XP.
OS X is playing ketchup.
One thing bogging down gig-ethernet today is the tiny 1500K frames. Some card/switch combinations can handle 9K frames, which cuts overhead way down. Anyone know how big the 'frames' in FWIP are. It would be phat if I could adjust it (or if it SELF adjusted!) for either max throughput or minimum latency depending on what it's being used for. BTW, the max IP frame is 64K, AFAIK, which would make transferring large files really efficient, while smaller frames are better suited for realtime streams.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
As we are fond of saying:
IP On Everything
true but this is TCP/IP we're talking about. If a windows box can telnet or ftp to a mac server on the real internet, it should work with IP over firewire the same way, no?
Currently, I can't use my Powerbook as a firewall because I don't have two NIC cards.
:)
By connecting my ethernet card to my cable modem, and my firewire port to my server, my laptop now becomes a FireWireWall
Smile, it tastes good
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
The tower macs and the Titanium PowerBooks both come with gigabit ethernet already. now i just need a gigabit card in my linux server (and i wouldn't mind a gigabit switch while i'm at it).
I've noticed since I installed Windows XP I have a "1394 Connection" listed under Network Connections. OS X can share files to Windows using Samba, so I think that covers it!