I replaced my AR750S with a FriendlyELEC NanoPi R5C, with a quad core A55 chip at 2 GHz, 4 GB RAM, and 32 GB of eMMC running Debian 12. It has no fan and is smaller than anything that GL iNet has released since the USB150. I am using a couple of small USB WiFi adapters for WWAN and WLAN. Having a full operating system that allows me to write my own firewall rules is great. I never want to go back to OpenWRT. The R5C has no problems running on my old AR750S 5V power adapter, so there is no need for a large power brick.
A new product with only 1 GB of RAM and a slow CPU. Why?
That's pretty funny; I never want to go back to a traditional static release distro like Debian when OWRT has owut.
Did you see the R3S-LTS? 2 GB, 32 GB flash, A55 @ 1.8 GHz, USB 3.0 Type-A, microSD slot, (2) GbE, fanless, metal chassis, USB-C power @ 46.00USD. It looks even smaller than the R5C... by 1.0 mm in height.
As an Intrusion Detection System (IDS), Firewalla monitors your network and alerts you when it detects malicious activities and vulnerabilities. As an Intrusion Prevention System (IPS), Firewalla will automatically identify and block risky connections.
That'd be a neat trick on a mere 2GB device (Firewalla Purple SE). I already get the majority of those benefits by using Quad9's anti-malware filtering, DNSSEC using dnscrypt-proxy via DOH. They update their threat lists faster than any single hardware provider, I'm sure.
Keep in mind GL.iNet doesn't even support QOS ATM I wouldn't hold my breath. That's the only major distinction I'm seeing enough to care about... beyond not being tied to a blasted phone app to use a glorified router permanently tethered to 'cloud services' for its functionality.
Thank you very much for your opinions and suggestions!
I found that many users are calling for 2GB RAM and that information I have synced to PM.
We will keep this opinion, the default HW version will be 1GB RAM, but it may be considered adding a HW version to 2GB RAM, but more market feedback is still needed.
TBH, we also wanted to use 2GB RAM by default, but it cost a lot more than we expected.
Regarding CPU part, considering power consumption and application scenarios of this product, I think that the quad-core A53 2.0GHz may meet most applications.
How does a quad-core A53 at 2ghz compare to the Flint 2 and Flint 3's CPU?
Will the Brume 3 be fully compatible with OpenWRT? Is this a Mediatek chipset?
When you say the cost difference is a lot, how much is it? With RAM prices in real terms being as low as it is, I can't imagine the difference being as big as you seem to make it out to be. I'm not sure if there is even a need to complicate your lineup by having 1 and 2GB variants. I guess if you do, please let us know what the sales are like between the two. I know I'll only be interested if there are 2GB.
What's to listen to, Bruce? There's no USB accelerators/off-loading to speak of, is there? Who's gonna tell 'em that putting a USB device on SBC is just gonna tax an already under powered CPU even more?
I have an EOL'd phone from 2019 that runs a A53. If it wasn't for the fact it also has A73 for a total of eight cores (octo-core, 8) it'd already long have been in the garbage bin.
It may be acceptable for a travel router (ie: Slate AX (GL-AXT1800)) but a Brume is suppose to be a dedicated VPN gateway. 550 Mbps over WG ain't gonna cut it when the NanoPi R6S can push 1.1+ Gbpsand have more than just five (5) concurrent tunnels as is the current limitation with GL.iNet's implementation of PBR at the price of a Slate 7 (GL-BE3600).
Then cut the NICs to 1 GbE, drop the RAM to 1 GB, flash to 128 MB, scrap the USB port entirely. Update the SOC/CPU to mid/high-end ARMv9 — with a NPU/hardware acceleration if neccessary — and fix the PBR. You know what I'm talking about regarding PBR. Make sure it can fully saturate the 941 Mbps, bi-di. Undercut the the NanoPi R6S by 20.00USD and make the GL GUI flawless. It is only the GUI that is GL.iNet's propositional value/market advantage but that only goes so far. It is not the sole option.
If it is to be marketed as a VPN gateway then make it a VPN gateway. No VPN needs NAS functionality, WLAN/mobile/WPAN connectivity or WAN load balancing. That's absolute nonsense.
I think it's a little more than noteworthy how I'm the only one ITT that seems to have no issue putting down any numbers to back up my claims.
As of this posting, my VPN gateway is using 59.95 MB with load average of 0.00 0.01 0.05 on a MediaTek MT7621. That SOC is twelve (12) years old (2013). It is running four (4) concurrent tunnels ATM even though it will never come close breaking 1 Gb over WG.
AdGuardHome is a toy for those that can't handle the power of the CLI. It does not belong on a VPN gateway. Buy a Flint v3 if you want that kind of 'all in one' convenience/lazyiness/superficiality at the cost of decreasing network capabilities.
