Slashdot Mirror


IP over Firewire Updated

foniksonik writes "Apple released an update to its IP over FireWire software. 'Now the IP over FireWire Preview Release adds support for using the Internet Protocol - commonly known as TCP/IP - over FireWire. ... Using the existing Network Preferences Pane, users can add FireWire as their IP network node to connect and communicate between two machines. ... In all cases, Rendezvous can be used if desired for configuration, name resolution, and discovery.'" Now it is time for YA debate on FireWire vs. Ethernet. Let the festivities commence!

22 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. some info. by sirfunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    this page, has plenty of info on tcp/ip over firewire.. w/ a quick read looks like length is the biggest problem, 2nd to no implimentation supporting more then 2 devices.

  2. Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So how is this better than gigabit ethernet which is standard on most macs?
    Is it just another way of communicating that perhaps allows one to avoid a congested/insecure ethernet backbone when connecting two neigboring macs?
    what's the big deal?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by Duck_Taffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gigabit isn't standard on most macs. It's standard on most pro model macs - the towers, and the 15" and 17" PowerBooks. Not available on the iMacs, eMacs, iBooks, or 12" PowerBook. Those are only available in the 10/100 variety of ethernet. Besides which, the first models of 15" PowerBook G4 came in 10/100 only, as well as the first two generations of G4 towers. So yeah, lots of computers currently in use that don't have Gigabit.

      The other advantage is that FireWire hubs are much cheaper than Gigabit Ethernet switches.

      --
      Karma: Ran over your dogma.
    2. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by Gropo · · Score: 5, Informative

      OS X features Multilink Multihoming, which allows multiple concurrent interfaces to IP ports. Conceivably, if you wished to cluster two Macs you could use 1394b, 802.11g and 1000BaseT (and even the 56k modems, I guess) simultaneously to pass packets to the client machine, thereby alleviating your bandwidth bottleneck by a huge margin.

      I wouldn't say "better," I'd say "extends the functionailty of the machine"

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    3. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by SensitiveMale · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you prices gigabit ethernet switches lately?

      Have you priced firewire hubs?

      Big difference.

    4. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by dbirchall · · Score: 3, Interesting
      FireWire 400 is obviously slower than Gigabit Ethernet. As is FireWire 800. But the second-generation FireWire spec defines speeds up to 3200Mbps (3.2Gbps) over appropriate cables (fiber, I believe) and distances (short).

      It remains to be seen whether FireWire will hit 3.2GBps before 10GBps Ethernet becomes affordable. (Even if it does, I'd really expect people to use it more for SANs and NAS than for ordinary networks.)

    5. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by tupps · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just for those who are wondering:

      Netgear 4 port 10/100/1000 Switch $725 (aussie dollars)

      Belkin 4 port Firewire Hub -- $149 (again AUD)

      So 4~5 times the price difference

      --
      Go out and get sailing!
    6. Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not true. In practice (yes, we have a Gig E network) you RARELY get over 300Mbps from a Gig E link - FW 400 can hit these rates just fine.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  3. old hat by g4dget · · Score: 3, Informative
    The eth1394 driver has been in the Linux kernel for a while. You can find a discussion of using IEEE 1394 for compute clusters here. And, you can do the same with both USB 1 and USB 2.

    Generally, Gigabit Ethernet is more flexible, easier to maintain, and has more third party hardware available for it, but if you have a motherboard with FW and are setting up a special-purpose, low-cost cluster, IEEE1394 or USB2 networking may be a reasonable choice.

  4. Useful when Ethernet is "in use" by macmastery · · Score: 5, Informative

    IP over FireWire is most useful when the Ethernet port is in use (such as, on a server). Let's say you have a full-time web server, serving over its ethernet interface. Say you need to upload more content, but you can't take that ethernet port or that server offline. You can upload the content and let the ethernet continue to serve as much as it can. It's handy and you don't need a complex networking solution.

    Also, consumer machines can have faster file transfers without shutting one machine down into target disk mode. I think it's supposed to be simple and fast, not scalable and fastEST.

    1. Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" by curious.corn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ethernet NICs on Apple computers are self-crossing...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    2. Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" by GrumpyOldMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From my experience with a previous release of Apple IP over Firewire, it seems slow, and it has very high overhead. A dual 800MHz G4 host which can transmit at well over 1.4 Gb/sec (using ethernet-over-Myrinet) maxes its CPU out at
      200Mb/sec, or less with IP over Firewire. GigE performance maxes out at something over 700Mb/sec. Both tests were run against a 15" 867MHz Powerbook directly connected (no switches in either case)

      As other posters pointed out, GigE switch hardware is much more expensive. But if you're just interested in point-to-point data transfers without using target mode, GigE is much faster.

  5. Having both is better by cappadocius · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So how is this better than gigabit ethernet which is standard on most macs?

    I think it is a suppliment for ethernet.

    For instance, by roommate has a laptop and a desktop but only one ethernet port, so he uses IP over Firewire to have both computers on the internet.

    It is also useful if you need to connect two computers but you are already using the ethernet jack on one of them.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis

  6. Re:Can you say hub? by questamor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firewire cable to connect the two machines: $little

    Hub or switch that can support the same speeds: $fuckloads

  7. Let's hope this is standard in Panther by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm hoping that they slide IP over FireWire in as a standard feature on Panther. I've been using it since January, and I must say that it is excellent. The speed isn't quite there yet, but it is good enough. By this, I mean that target disk mode still gives noticeably faster transfers, but this feels faster than 100mbps ethernet. (I haven't run numbers, sue me.)

    For the people out there questioning "Why?", here goes. For machines with built in ethernet and no PCI slots, this is a godsend. I have my Cube and my TiBook on a little LAN using IP over FireWire and Internet Sharing. Since the Cube's ethernet port is dedicated to the network connection, the only other way I would have been able to do this would be AirPort, and this obviously blows that away for bandwidth. With AirPort, large file transfers would take forever, and I probably couldn't max out my connection. (Gotta love college hookups!)

    This is just one of the many reasons why I love Apple so much. For all the things in OS X that get big press, there are so many little treasures such as IP over FireWire. Even for a preview release, it's pretty damn well polished. (Disclaimer: Many have complained that is has trashed prefs on install, but in two installs and two upgrades I've never had this problem.) Keep up the good work Apple, and make this a part of the standard install ASAP.

  8. Share firewire devices by johram · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been toying around with the new IP over Firewire and noticed something quite interesting. I've got my iBook connected to the second fw400 port on my DP1.25ghz fw800 MDD powermac. The first fw400 port on my powermac is used by my 30gig iPod. I installed the new release on both machines and when I had rebooted my iPod showed up on both my iBook and my Powermac. I don't know if this was Rendezvous, which I know is now implemented on the new release. I can see how this could be quite useful in a setting where an external Firewire device, say a DVD burner or HardDisk, could be easily shared between two computers.

    --
    "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity."
  9. A future use for FW800, poor performance with IP by pillar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Something that cluster guys may want to think about is the use of Firewire 800 as a cluster media (like a control net) for a group of n xserves (or any other mac). This would be an alternative (since the FW800 is already there) buying a load of Cisco 4000 or 6500 switches to run the control net. I'm actually not sure how many nodes it can handle, but I assume it would be enough to run a small to medium mac cluster. Along those same lines, when testing the performance of FW400 between nodes using iperf ( http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/ ) which will test raw throughput and give very good results, FW400 performance was very poor. The GigE was pretty good (unfortunately I do not have the numbers in front ot me) but if I'm not mistaken, FW400 was a bit better than 100mb E and the GigE was pushing over 800mb UDP back to back with another MAC. Performance was degraded when adding a GigE switch between the 2 macs (due to backplane).

    --
    nb
  10. redundancy by bobba22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so it's not as fast as gigE but it makes one hell of a redundant system to daisychain round a few nodes. As a previous poster said, it will also take some bottleneck strain. There's the possibility of using it for LAN parties without half the hardware cost (if indeed it can be daisychained - and I can't see why not)The quicker this gets fully implemented, the better.

  11. Target disk mode... by weave · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What I use a lot is target disk mode. Very nice for transferring my huge tunes archive to my laptop. Just plug a firewire cable into your source mac, then into your powered down destination (target) mac, then power up the target mac while holding down the T key. A funky firewire symbol screensaver comes up and your second mac's disk icon appears on your source mac's desktop. Very nice.

    The only weird thing I can't figure out yet is how it mounts that other disk. All files are owned by the admin owner and you can't chown anything on the target macs disk, therefore if I backup /Users to it with "rsync -a", it requires later booting up the destination mac and "chown -R" each user's home dir. There must be a mount option somewhere to deal with this...

  12. Re:IP FREELY by big_oaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    IP FireWire. Sounds like you need some antibiotics. (Ba-doom ching!)

    --
    -- My hovercraft is full of eels.
  13. IPoFW by dr00g911 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IP Over Firewire has been really useful for me in a couple of situations -- most notably when I've needed to run backups of my main Macs. For day-to-day use, I stick to 10/100 though -- it's cheaper to implement, and I can crimp my own cables on a whim.

    I've got a Shuttle barebones based Wintel system with built-in firewire and a pair of massive drives that I use for a rendering station/backup server -- and let me tell you -- backing up 130 gigs worth of DV footage/uncompressed TIFFs (insert pr0n joke here) over Firewire is one hell of a lot quicker than waiting for the same over 100mbps Ethernet. XP is slightly flaky when it comes to IP over firewire (no, i *don't* want those connections bridged!) but once you get it running it's a little more stable than your average house of cards.

    I know a lot of photographers who swear by Target Disk mode as well -- they carry their powerbooks as preview stations and Big Honkin Memory Cards (using Firewire-connected pro cameras) and once they get back to their main machine to retouch, they just go into target mode and stuff dumps *fast*. Now if only I could get a kodak camera back to interface with my iPod......

    All things being equal, I've been tempted to convert everything I've got over to firewire from the stock ethernet jacks -- but I honestly have better uses for a firewire port most of the time (DVD-R, DVcam, DVDeck, DV-to-component box, iPod), and I really prefer to rely on my router for connection sharing instead of the Mac.

  14. Re:question about this. Can I use this instead of by papasui · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your G4 has a internet connection you should enable internet connection sharing and then you will be able to use NAT (Network Address Translation) to access the net. Essentially your G4 becomes the network gateway/router and it will pass through your requests.