• Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    15 hours ago

    24 MHz Arm Cortex M0+ processor. The chip also carried 24KB of flash storage and 3KB of static RAM.

    … a 10y old phone can barely load Google, and this is about 100x slower.

    Wild that you can serve anything with that hardware. Granted, static websites are basically just sending files over the wire.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The 10 year old phone OS probably is slowing all of that. If they flashed phone as a dedicated webserver it would probably be fine

    • disorderly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The webpage he hosted was a copy of his own blog post explaining the hack. It just about fit into the 20KB of available flash storage.

      We can infer that on every request, the whole static page needs to be spooled out of flash onto RAM (in chunks no larger than 3k), then sent out over Ethernet.

      That’s an awful lot of work for the chip. I’m not surprised at all that it errors out under heavy load. The request queue probably grows until it collides with the buffer that bucket brigades the web page to the network.

      I’m afraid to look up what optimizations were necessary to get that level of performance. It’s damned impressive work.

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Ah, but what if you string together 100 of these as a cluster? Now u get a whole 2Mb of flash storage!