this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
836 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59772 readers
3115 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mad_Punda@feddit.org 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Mmh only two Ethernet ports? I guess it’s for people who use mostly wifi only?

[–] Naich@lemmings.world 59 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's just the router, I guess. Provide your own switch for more ports.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Exactly this. With VLAN tagging you can plug that single 2.5Gb connection into a 48-port managed switch and effectively have up to 47 different NICs if that's what floats your boat. They'd all share the 2.5Gb but that's still more than a lot of small networks need.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In a shared 2.5Gb scenario as you describe, would fully pegged upload/download be 1.25Gb each? Could it do 2.5Gb in both directions simultaneously? Assuming no compute bottlenecks.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

It's full duplex so it's 2.5Gb each way simultaneosly. Most NICs support half-duplex but I don't know of any good reason to use that. I used to have a BananaPi based router that could comfortably saturate it's gigiabit interface. I assume there's some kind of offloading going on.

[–] TK420@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s a router, not a switch.

[–] Mad_Punda@feddit.org 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Well the router I use today has 4 ports (and a built in modem for that matter, but I don’t use that).
I understand I can use a switch, but that means I’ll have to buy a switch in addition to this to replace my router.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which is not a bad thing, it’s more unix if you will. Router is a router, switch is a switch.

You provide your own switch and you choose the features: port count, port speed, vlan, etc — or get a 10€ switch if you don’t care. When a port breaks you replace the switch alone.

Multifunction tools are generally a tradeoff where you buy immediate convenience and pay with more ewaste and more money in the long run.

[–] Mad_Punda@feddit.org 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago

I also wanted to chime in with the perennial point that while this device is a pure expression of the OpenWrt project, they also support hundreds of other devices including, amazingly, a number of large switches, so if you wanted to ditch the separate route appliance altogether you could get all the features with only switch hardware.

[–] randombullet@programming.dev 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The audience of this router most likely already has a standalone switch within their network.

[–] Mad_Punda@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

I have 3 but they’re not close to the router. (What I’m saying is: I’m likely target audience, but I don’t have an additional switch nearby, since so far any router I had also had a built in switch.)

But yeah, I get it. Modularity makes sense for repairability.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago

Yet for 98% of everyone else, you either need more than 4, or you only need one or two. You got a house full of proffesional gamers that can't have an extra 15ms of latency?