From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jun 2 9: 4: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net (mail-01.cdsnet.net [206.107.16.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3FB515378 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mrcpu@internetcds.com) Received: (qmail 15411 invoked from network); 2 Jun 1999 16:03:50 -0000 Received: from schizo.cdsnet.net (204.118.244.32) by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 2 Jun 1999 16:03:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:03:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen X-Sender: mrcpu@schizo.cdsnet.net To: Stephen Fisher Cc: Lowell Gilbert , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a Dedicated Router In-Reply-To: <3754E0C6.11673766@twrol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Well, yes and no. I just ordered one of these flash based IDE hard drives to test booting FreeBSD. On the assumption that it works like it's advertised, then except for PS fans, which can be addressed via dual power supplies, I should have no moving parts. Which should get me pretty close to equivalent reliability. Heck, I have FreeBSD boxes that have been up for almost 18 months under heavy use, and my longest running Cisco is only at 70 some days, after crashing... :) On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Stephen Fisher wrote: > > Other reasons why people don't like to use PCs as routers are things > like the fact that they have moving parts inside them like hard drives > which can fail and bring the entire thing down. > > Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > > > On 1 Jun 1999, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > > > Doug White writes: > > > > > > > I wouldn't suggest it for a core router, but for a small office router on > > > > up it should be OK. > > > > > > Good summary of the performance issues. In my own opinion, I don't > > > think anything that does its forwarding in software is fast enough for > > > the Internet core. But then again, I work on stuff that *is* meant > > > for the core. > > > > > > > Well, like anything, it all depends on your definition of core/load, but > > FreeBSD using ET's T1 cards, and 4 portt ethernet cards from Znyx is > > handling significantly higher than "small office router" loads, trivially, > > with 3-4% CPU usage, including firewalling. > > > > I'm only using P6-200's on supermicro MB's, but I see no reason to believe > > that this won't scale to 12 T1's and 4-8 ethernet ports easily. > > > > PCI bandwidth may be an issue, but that's all I can think of. > > > > (Your other issues of compliancy are valid, but I suspect non-issues in > > the current world, generally speaking). > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message