IP over Firewire Updated 101
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!
some info. (Score:5, Informative)
IP over SCSI (Score:2)
-psy
okie dokie, then... (Score:2)
Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:5, Informative)
The other advantage is that FireWire hubs are much cheaper than Gigabit Ethernet switches.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't say "better," I'd say "extends the functionailty of the machine"
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Having both is better (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:1)
Yes, well, that's one solution. But since I've already got a Firewire cable (Macs come with one free) IP over Firewire is a nice option to have as well.
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:1)
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hub or switch that can support the same speeds: $fuckloads
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:1)
I would rather say "$zero" as every Mac with built-in FireWire is shipped with a free FW cable.
Free FireWire cable? (Score:2)
My late 2001 iBook has built-in FireWire, and it didn't ship with a FireWire cable.
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:2)
I've purchased new three Macs with built-in FireWire, and none of them came with a FireWire cable, free or otherwise.
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:1)
Re:Can you say hub? (Score:1)
Just use what ever is available.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you priced firewire hubs?
Big difference.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Short over copper, but you can go 100 meters at 3200mbps with a full 1394b implementation. See here [apple.com].
Since you can run Firewire 800 over optical now, and it uses the same MM fiber, wire up with fiber now and upgrade to 3200 when it's available. The cables and connectors are supposed to be future-proof this time.
Of course, providing power over optical cable is likely to be a challenge.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
That would be nice.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
Don't have to shutdown either machine; just plug, wait a few seconds, and go.
-Ster
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:2)
You probably COULD create a fresh new firewire only protocol to communicate to other machines, but when TCP/IP is awfully well tested already and integrates with every other app - hey, it's free extra functionality.
now IP over USB? why n
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
Let your PDA with Linux be a USB-device and connect with USB to your Windows/whatever.
Re:Gigabit ethernet versus firewire (Score:1)
It isn't, really. I tried it out when they first released IP over Firewire and found it about equalled my normal Gigabit E performance - the problem being that 1394 cabling costs the Earth. Mind you, my setup was using FW 400 - you may well be able to exceed Gig E's practicle bandwidth limitations when using Macs with FW 800 on the motherboard. Still, it's a great technology for Apple to implement - if nothing more it effectively
Re:IP FREELY (Score:2, Funny)
I.P. FREHLEY (Score:2)
old hat (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:old hat (Score:1)
Yeah, IP over Firewire for OS X has been around for some time [macslash.org], too. It's just been updated.
Re:old hat (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the CPU utilization figures I've seen for the Linux kernel support for IP-over-IEEE1394 suggests that you couldn't really get too close to maximum b
Re:old hat (Score:2)
Joe
Re:old hat (Score:2)
My latest JE has some info and links (Score:2)
Several weeks after the JE was written, I am generally pleased with the technology because it solved one of my problem (need for a p2p network connection between computers on different LANs). The biggest disappointment I have is for performance which is not great (only marginally faster that FastEthernet and certainly not line rate), and high CPU utilization (bot
Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:1)
Like say, a hub ?
Or even a switch.
Your hypothetical server's ethernet interface is probably connected to a broadband connection with significantly lower bandwidth than ethernet so uploading new content isn't likely to max out your connection.
And if your web server is serving huge volumes of traffic then I guess you're probably running some kind of big fancy operation that would have the sense and the budget to run multiple servers each with multiple nics and the full load ba
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:2)
--Mike
(Then again, if you had such an important server with only one NIC, you're asking for trouble.)
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:2)
I finally broke down and plugged in a hub and did it over Ethernet - but if I had used my Firewire cable, it would have finished in 30 seconds.
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:1)
Re:Useful when Ethernet is "in use" (Score:2, Interesting)
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
FYI (Score:2)
Quite simple really. (Score:1)
Let's hope this is standard in Panther (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Let's hope this is standard in Panther (Score:2)
Re:Let's hope this is standard in Panther (Score:2)
and by the way - windows xp had this built in when it was released (I believe 2000 Pro did as well), and Linux has had this for some time too (although in the traditional linux fashion, it's difficult to set up, doesn't support all hardware, whi
Maximum cable length (Score:1)
Re:Maximum cable length (Score:2)
Re:Maximum cable length (Score:2)
Share firewire devices (Score:2, Interesting)
A future use for FW800, poor performance with IP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A future use for FW800, poor performance with I (Score:2)
Why this is a good thing (Score:1)
They are getting into higher-performance computing clusters, with the release of things like the Xserve Cluster Node [apple.com] that has two FireWire ports. FireWire provides HEAPS lower latency than ethernet, so to link a few cluster nodes together, and avoid paying big money for exotic low-latency interconnects, it's now all included.
- k
redundancy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:redundancy (Score:1)
Small ethernet hubs/switches are cheap.
Target disk mode... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:Target disk mode... (Score:1)
Re:Target disk mode... (Score:1)
This is.. (Score:1)
In testing, I've found FTPing over a FireWire cable has very lovely results.
question about this. Can I use this instead of eth (Score:2)
My options seem to be.
1) find a usb/ethernet adapter that works with OSX. (difficult because all macs seem to have built in ethernet.)
2) airport card, but I'm not sure how that would work with my current network (linux box as firewall/ipmasq )
but now this seems like a viable option. If I attached via firewire to the G4 would I be able to see the whole network or just files on the G4?
Re:question about this. Can I use this instead of (Score:3, Informative)
Re:TCP/IP (Score:2)
Mosly, I'd just say you are confused.
IPoFW (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:IPoFW connecting between Mac and WinXP (Score:1)
The purpose is to run Remote Desktop Connection or VNC to control the PC from the Mac environment at super high speed.
I've had the same problems with XP bridging the connections. Anybody have tips for how to get this done?
Others have suggested removing the Ethernet connection from the PC,
Re:IPoFW connecting between Mac and WinXP (Score:2)
You can also go in and hack around in the IPFW config (if youre so inclined), or use something like BrickHouse to edit the built-in firewall and port forwarding.
Basically w
It's for Rendezvous support more than anything. (Score:1)
Of course if THAT'S true then we can start speculating about
no, just IP (Score:1)
No, IP is just known as IP. TCP sits on top of it, but it's not the only one who can. UDP does too, and anything else could if you felt like it.
I know this is getting picky, but this is "news for nerds", so try to keep it straight.
Apple getting into ESP? (Score:2)
You currently have no assets.
well, damn! it's not bad enough that they're checking up on my financial status, but do they have to rub it in?
A few things (Score:2)
TCP/IP over 10/100 LAN: 1:30
IP over FireWire: 1:50
FireWire with 1 Mac in target disk mode: 1:25
TCP/IP over 1000bT (straignt cable): 0:27
My conclusion at the time was "Slow, but potentially useful." Well, I have since found a use. I have a G4 here at work and recently bought an iBook. I put the (old) IP-FW driver on both Macs, gave them
Use VNC for Remote Desktop (Score:1)
It might be less complete or performant than solutions like Timbiktu or Apple remote desktop, but it is open source, free, runs over IP, is ported on all the platforms that you might want to use.
Search for VNC on Version Tacker [versiontracker.com].