From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Nov 14 15:16:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA17144 for isp-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:16:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA17094 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:16:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA23368; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:12:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA04622; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:12:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:12:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611142312.PAA04622@chimp.jnx.com> From: Tony Li To: stefan@exis.net CC: jdd@vbc.net, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, chad@gaianet.net, isp@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Molnar on Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:24:12 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Decision in Router Purchase Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk That is why we are using it. For us it is very coast effective. To handle it we are getting some 100MB ports for the eth switches. Even with the two the Ts, the CPU was at 90%. That just purely sucks. Depending on the router and the configuration, that might be misconfiguration... And note that there isn't loads of extra CPU in the box -- it's not trying to run a full blown OS plus application programs. Tony