Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:02:35 -0800 (PST) From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> To: dennis@etinc.com Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? Message-ID: <199611200002.QAA16485@chimp.jnx.com> In-Reply-To: <199611192355.SAA09938@etinc.com> (dennis@etinc.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Excuse me, but outages are paramount. They are the direct result of >technology failure and are the metric of user pain and anguish. I agree >that the routing load is not an issue, however, the load of a busy web and >mail server may cause routing to fail. Doesnt in practice... Your practice doesn't jive with my practice. I'll again agree to disagree. A web server cant be busier than the bandwidth... Can you say CGI? ;-) and one or even 2 T1s is just not enough load to justify an external router with 1/5th the horsepower. That depends on the routing protocols and their load, the Web server, and the criticality of the mission. >I'm not trying to imply anything other than what I'm saying outright: >running significant services on the same Unix box that you've got running >mission-critical routing is going to be less reliable than a situation >where routing does not have competition for resources. I reject your premise based on the fact that the routing is an implicit function of the mail and web servers, We have some confusion here between forwarding load, and routing load. You are correct, that forwarding load is a function of bandwidth. Forwarding is not all that a router does. I think that you are talking about backbone routers and we're talking about something smaller...one or 2 t1 installations. Obviously at T3 you won't be running a web server on the box! Modulo the above confusion, we agree. Note that a T1 installation CAN have a great deal of routing load while it's bandwidth is not stressed at all. Simply get a couple of full BGP feeds... Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611200002.QAA16485>