From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 19 22:57:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E598516A41F for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:57:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@wm-access.no) Received: from lakepoint.domeneshop.no (lakepoint.domeneshop.no [194.63.248.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EB043D5A for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:56:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@wm-access.no) Received: from [192.168.5.8] (host-81-191-3-170.bluecom.no [81.191.3.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakepoint.domeneshop.no (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8JMub6w007516; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:56:38 +0200 Message-ID: <432F4223.6030904@wm-access.no> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:56:35 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt Jaeger References: <432EC4FF.4030706@lvdx.com> <20050919205757.GI62233@complx.LF.net> <432F3013.7090001@keystreams.com> <20050919214618.GJ62233@complx.LF.net> In-Reply-To: <20050919214618.GJ62233@complx.LF.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 OpenPGP: id=C308A003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Roman Volf , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD, quagga (BGP) and 2950 VLANs X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:57:01 -0000 > >>Doing a straight FTP transfer from one server to another >>through a CIsco 3640 seems to cap at about 40 Mbits/second so I was >>wondering how that compares to a x86 system running FreeBSD. > > > The tests I made using some shuttle.com barebone hardware etc > seems to max out around 500 mbit/sec. It wasn't a full-blown BGP setup, > far from it. More seems easily be possible, but we still need > to test. > 500mbit/sec throughput? that would be 1 gbit/sec input + output? can the PCI bus do any better than that? -- Sten Daniel Sørsdal