Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:52:37 -0500 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as router - performance vs hardware routers Message-ID: <877k5gb5iy.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> In-Reply-To: <1060871994.5979.12.camel@alexandria> (J. Seth Henry's message of "14 Aug 2003 10:39:55 -0400") References: <1060871994.5979.12.camel@alexandria>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 2003-08-14T14:39:55Z, "J. Seth Henry" <jshamlet@comcast.net> writes: > What I'm not sure about is performance. Has anyone built a cable modem > gateway router using FreeBSD and "low-end" hardware like this? If so, what > were your results? Under full load, the (old) machine never uses more than 1 or 2% CPU - including interrupt servicing. It moves along nicely. The reason that I tend to prefer "soft" routers is that if you need extra functionality, it's usually very easy to add it. A friend just replaced a FreeBSD box with a Linksys SOHO router and was kind of peeved to realize that he lost: 1) DHCP that's more than trivially configurable 2) The ability to send signed nameserver updates whenever his IP changes 3) IPv6 4) Totally configurable NAT and firewalling For most people, those probably aren't things that would be missed. I'd hate to lose any of them. =2D-=20 Kirk Strauser --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/O7BF5sRg+Y0CpvERAi4wAJ0Q71b5p8nA2fuOx6PT5kR5f4xKNwCfUfZ9 IpVrh3kCGbkEexM+DBPH7+E= =2oL7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?877k5gb5iy.fsf>