From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Ildefonso_Camargo_Tolosa?= Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:05:40 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Re: the "cisco vs. Linux" thread (two answers (I have digest, sorry), Message-Id: <40EEB444.6060800@unet.edu.ve> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:44:26 -0700 > From: Nicholas Erkert > To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > Subject: Re: [LARTC] the "cisco vs. Linux" thread > > Glen Mabey wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:07:57PM -0400, Jos? Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote: >>> >> >>>>>you can use an Athlon >>>>>64 with DDR RAM and very good network hardware (that is very, very >>>>>important) >> >>> >>> >>> Regarding NICs, are there any recommendations out there for which >>> manufacturers to go with? I don't need anything faster than 100baseT. >>> ........ >>> >>> Thank you-- >>> Glen Mabey >>> > > I have had some good luck with Intel cards using either drivers. I > haven't noticed much difference between them but I haen't done a lot of > stress testing on them. > > On a side note has anyone built a linux router with dual/quad port > ethernet cards (ie Intel PRO/1000 MT Quad Port Server Adapter)? I used a dlink one: not fully tested, but seem to work fine. > > > --Nick Erkert > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:31:06 -0500 (EST) > From: Joshua Snyder > To: Sudheer Divakaran > Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Is Linux based Router feasible > > Let me start out by saying that I work for a company that makes Linux > based routers. Checkout www.imagestream.com Anyway, any > Linux box will perform just fine at the data rates your talking about. Some realtek cards (and even some 3com) report: Too much work at interrupt, and REALLY slows down things, even at 256kbps. There are workarounds, but it just raises the CPU load A LOT (altough things starts working faster). > You don't even have to worry about what type of hardware your using as > long as it not more than 5 years old. Now to answer some of the points > that other people have brought up. You can make a pc that has a large > number of interfaces. I have seen Linux boxes with 100 t-1's and 2 ds-3's > plugged into them... 8 port t-1 cards are common and dual port ds-3 cards > are easy to get. You just have to get mainboards that have enough pci > slots. In general as long as you stay inside of what the hardware can do > you should be able to route at line rate. Currently most pc hardware is > limited to about a max of 1Gbit/sec but server hardware can be used to > build routers that will route 4Gbit/sec. Not as good as some of the > highest end cisco routers... but ten's of thousands of dollars cheaper. > One thing I have seen doing testing of many routers vs Linux routers most > cisco routers tend to get badly boughed down when running many access > lists. This is not a big problem with a Linux box or even other non-cisco > routers. If you don't believe me checkout... > > http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2003/0714rev.html Just as I said: cisco use very *small* cpus. > > You should have no problems doing what you want to do. > > josh > > > p.s. alot of the packet per sec numbers that cisco talks about are only > valid when routing from Ethernet to Ethernet interfaces and with packets > that stay in the fast switching path on the cisco. If you start talking > about other interfaces all of those numbers are out of the window. This > leads many people to end-up with cisco's that are way under powered for > the application. I am not saying that cisco's can't route at wire-speed > but that most people don't have the right router for the job. > > > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/