this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

OpenWrt

546 readers
3 users here now

OpenWrt news, tools, tips and discussion. Related projects, such as DD-WRT, Tomato and OpenSAN, are also on-topic.

Rules

  1. Stay on topic: All posts should be related to OpenWrt and related projects, including DD-WRT, Tomato, OpenSAN, and more!

  2. No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Be nice - keep it civil and friendly!

  3. Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos.

  4. No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.

  5. No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English, behind a paywall or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.

  6. No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.

  7. No piracy: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content.

  8. No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.

  9. No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ijeff@lemdro.id
inspector@gadgetro.id
4
Router as tiny server? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 weeks ago by hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works to c/openwrt@lemdro.id
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Go with me here. Routers are routers, and servers are servers. Some people mix and match things, but generally, ideally, this is how it goes. And I agree.

But the router I just set up, the Google WiFi, has 4gb storage, 512mb of ram, a quad core CPU at 800mhz, is easy to flash, and only costs $10-15 on eBay all day long.

If you used it as only a little computer, no routing.. Then..

If I wanted to say... Set up a tailscale node at my family's house. Why spend $45-80, or even $130(!) on a raspberry pi with an Ethernet port, when the Google WiFi works just as well if not better for that job?

Maybe a tiny matrix server? Tiny web hosting?

Or, for a less ideal solution, but still reasonable. What if I wanted to set up a remote backup node for my main server? If my needs were small enough, the Google WiFi would be much more economical, although you'd need to add a USB hub to break out the USB ports. And there would be limitations obviously.

Or getting really crazy, you could potentially squeeze one or two bigger services onto a router, just to see if it's possible.. Minecraft server?

My question is. What is the best device for this? The Google WiFi is dirt cheap at $10-15, I'm about to pull the trigger on a second one just to play with. But I wanted to see if you guys had any other suggestions?

I tried searching the toh for similar devices, but even restricting it down every way I can think of, I've still got over a hundred devices to look at.

Basically, I think older router hardware is an overlooked, cheaper alternative, to raspberry pis, for some scenarios.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryokimball 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not that routers are routers and servers are servers, But computers are computers. If the hardware can support the software you want to run, then do it.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's a bit more to it than that. There's plenty of software that will technically run on low-end platforms, but often not well.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That's fair, my thought was just that, while this is low end, it's not THAT low end, and it's reasonably priced for a one off project or something to tinker with.

My question is, the Google WiFi fits the bill pretty close for me and my tinkering desires. And the price is right. But it'd be better with something like an exposed USB port, or heck, maybe even a little more oomph, sure. As long as it's still cheap.

I guess I'm mostly just making conversation about this idea I had. And wondering if anyone knew of a similar spec device with a similar price that might be better suited 🤷‍♂️

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also keep in mind that the ARM A5x cores are simple in-order designs intended for max power efficiency, GHz for GHz they are going to be a lot slower than an ARM A7x core or an x86 core, even most x86 "little" cores made in the last 5 years will be considerably faster at the same clock rate.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

That's a fair point I hadn't considered, thank you!

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have a look at the NanoPi R3S:

https://www.friendlyelec.com/index.php?route=product%2Fproduct&path=69&product_id=311

Quad A55 at up to 1.8GHz.

I have a NanoPi R5S running OpenWrt acting as a router + light NAS and a NanoPi M4 running Armbian (Debian flavor) running a LXQt desktop and they're not bad.

It's worth noting though that because I have a HDD hooked up to the R5S via USB3, when I read or write to it over a 2.5Gbps link, the CPU is like 60-70% busy just handling USB and network interrupts and running NFS. The R5S has a quad A55 CPU at up to 2GHz, so that should give you a rough idea what the R3S is capable of.

There's also the NanoPi Zero 2:

https://www.friendlyelec.com/index.php?route=product%2Fproduct&path=69&product_id=304

In general, older Rockchip CPUs are getting to be fairly well supported these days, and newer ones are getting support a lot faster than the old ones did. But always do your due diligence of course, anything ARM tends to have way more gotchas than x86, and that gets more true as its Chinese-ness increases.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks for the recommendations! Those are really capable looking machines for not much more money. I think that answers my question as to why nobody else is doing this with old routers haha

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 2 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I know nothing about that device. The specs you listed seem pretty usable if you're judicious about what software you use. There are plenty of routers getting by on 128MB, or even less. I'm sure at least some of the things you listed are feasible, depending upon how hard you wanna push it.

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neither the Google WiFi nor an RPI make a good nas server, but either would certainly work. Some routers even have m.2 or USB connectors specifically for that reason.

For a simple web server, there's even an nginx package for OpenWRT, so you have reverse proxying and basic web hosting on that Google puck with just a couple clicks.

Another interesting possibility is putting a tftp server on your router, and using it as a pxe server.

Plenty of options, if you don't mind the performance.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Exactly! They're not good per sé, but you could use them, especially for a really tiny home operation.

I guess what I'm saying is...

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Awesome!

I'm having trouble figuring out how to access Gale, I'm not sure what to do with @gale@gts-googlewifi.k3can.us

Edit nevermind I dropped the @gale@ and got in 👍

Edit again, guess I can't get past the main page to see any posts? I'm not great at understanding federation haha. I just log into the boost app and it just works normally haha

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 2 points 1 day ago

It's Mastodon compatible, so the best way to follow is through a Mastodon client, like Tusky. Just search for the whole @gale@gts-googlewifi.k3can.us and you'll see and be able to follow the feed.

Alternatively, you can view the feed online at gts-googlewifi.k3can.us/@gale but it's not really the intended way to follow the account.

[–] K3can@lemmy.radio 2 points 1 week ago

For sure.

I have several of the Google WiFi pucks, myself. Flashing them wasn't too complicated, but it does involve disassembly. One of them was my primary router for a while, until it was eventually replaced by a banana pi. It handled the typical routing tasks, plus ad blocking, a VPN, etc. without issue.

Like I said, I believe there's an nginx package for OpenWRT, serving static web pages should be trivial. If I recall correctly, it only has 8gb of sausage and a half gig of RAM, though. Plenty for a router or static web server, but not a lot of resources for anything too complex. I wonder if you could squeeze a GoToSocial instance in there... That might be fun, actually. I've been tinkering with Home Assistant lately, but maybe once that's "finished", GTS on a WiFi puck might be my next project. Hm...

[–] JASN_DE@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

best device

Those are some pretty varying requirements. Sure, for the low-powered ones the repurposed routers are probably fine.

If you need a little more oomph, have a look at the Dell Wyse 5070. x64, but passively cooled.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Ah, maybe I wasn't clear. I understand that none of this is "best device for the job".

I mean, I want to tinker with this idea, I want the most bang for my buck while tinkering. Currently the Google WiFi seems capable of some of those goals, and is $10-15. Is there another similarly specced and priced router that you're aware of that also has a USB port exposed for use? And is also $10-15?

Tall order, really I'm just making conversation

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

You can totally do this but there are a few gottas:

  • Make sure you have external storage. Do not rely on the internal flash as it isn't designed for frequent writes

  • Keep your performance expectations in check

My advise would be to spend a bit more and get something a little nicer. Find something with a relatively new Qualcomm chipset. I would also recommend that you get one or more dedicated APs.

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tailscale will perform poorly on a CPU of that capability if you try to push much data through it. It's nowhere near as performant as Wireguard on the same hardware.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't tailscale just wireguard with a few bells and whistles added?

Thanks for the heads up! I run wireguard direct on my own router.

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I haven't confirmed this, but my understanding is that with Tailscale the packets need to be shuffled into and out of userspace, whereas with straight Wireguard they stay entirely in kernelspace.

Either way I was unpleasantly surprised to see Tailscale performing worse than I expected based on raw Wireguard performance on a few ARM based routers I own. Quad 800MHz ARM will be pretty slow for any sort of bulk data transfer. But for light web browsing, ssh, etc it will probably be fairly usable.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this isn't true unless you're running tailscale on a device which doesn't have kernel wireguard support

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

Got a link I can read?

Something about it is slower than bare Wireguard, but maybe I can do some tests.

[–] hereiamagain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Good to know! Thanks!