From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Jan 10 11:16:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03444 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:16:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from ns1.castlenet.com (ns1.castlenet.com [209.63.23.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03437 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:16:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from efinley@castlenet.com) Received: from ip53.castlenet.com (sfiction@ip53.castlenet.com [209.63.23.53]) by ns1.castlenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00696; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 12:23:16 GMT From: efinley@castlenet.com (Elliot Finley) To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Q: which ppp to use? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 19:20:27 GMT Organization: Hiawatha Coal Company Reply-To: efinley@castlenet.com Message-ID: <34b9c963.2588864@castlenet.com> References: <34bd281e.113348308@castlenet.com> <34b8cbd5.968492@mail.cetlink.net> <34b7c3db.1173108@castlenet.com> <34b9d48c.3198832@mail.cetlink.net> In-Reply-To: <34b9d48c.3198832@mail.cetlink.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id LAA03438 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:11:28 GMT, you wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:58:08 GMT, efinley@castlenet.com (Elliot >Finley) wrote: > >>>>If I plan on having up to 200 simultaneous ppp dialins on a single >>>>box, which ppp would be better? pppd or user ppp? >>> >>>Neither one, because that airplane will not fly. >>> >>>32 ports per box, or perhaps 64 with the right stuff, hardware wise. >>>You will need more than one box. >>> >> >>What is the limiting factor? Memory? Cpu power? what? >> >>My box is a Pentium II 233, with 64MB ram.... How much processing >>power and memory does a portmaster have? If I need more memory I'll >>just put more memory in it... So what IS the limiting factor? > >I/O "bandwidth." The PC architecture was not designed for the I/O >bandwidth needed to handle 200 loaded ports. But if you want to see >how high you can go, I would like to hear your report. > Well, if all my ports are hanging off of the PCI Busmastering host, I don't see any problem with I/O Bandwidth... Isn't a 66 MHZ PCI bus capable of something like 33MB/Sec.? That should be plenty... -- Elliot Finley (efinley@castlenet.com) President Hiawatha Coal Company