Automatic Wireless Network Organisation

babycakes writes "Interesting article over at the BBC about the future of wireless networks. Researchers at Intel are developing mesh networking technology that automatically organizes the best routes between wireless devices for better bandwidth control, now that the number of wireless devices is set to explode." Neat stuff, but they've yet to implement any sort of security controls. Until they do, it's going to be a real party for wireless eavesdroppers. timothy adds: La Camiseta writes "Wired has an article discussing the extent that some people will go to in order to stay connected. My favorite is their 4-way SMP system that fits into a briefcase."

Comments

Re:Whats the point of that Mini-ITX cluster?

[shepd]

>I actually used one to run my squid-based proxy, and it was outperformed by the P200/MMX I wanted to replace.

Why do I always have to defend this processor against such incorrect accusations?

The VIA C3 is about 25% slower than the equivalent PIII processor, in Mhz. Yeah, that's an average between it's spectacular integer performance and dismal FPU performance.

How you could get an application that doesn't use the FPU to perform so badly on this processor is a major feat of poor installation. I don't think I could screw up a C3 install that bad no matter how bad I tried. As proof that the C3 is faster than a P200 MMX, try playing DVDs. Notice the C3 can handle it, but notice what happens when you do the same thing on your P200 MMX.

For squid, you should have gotten FAR more performance on a properly configured system.

For their application (wireless), this CPU is perfect. There's very little FPU activity (perhaps none?) for network routing. They should find this processor running cool and fast.

I suggest you check wether DMA was enabled on your squid server, considering that it is a relatively HDD intensive application. I doubt it's the CPU causing it to run that poorly.

>Why cluster 4 of those? I'd think a 2 gig Celeron (of course P4 would be preferred) would have more power, faster DDR Ram, be as cheap (if not cheaper).

Let's see:

Assuming a switching power supply has a 70% efficiency rate, and assuming they max out a 300 watt power supply for each board (pretty much right for your selection of processors), we are talking 430 watts consumption per system.

That's 430 * 4 = 1720 watts. In many countries (mine included) that would require a special circuit for such a high power draw (1500 watts is the reccomended maximum, or 1800 watts peak power). That's more than a hairdryer uses. Not a smart choice at all.