Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:40:03 -0700 From: Andrew McRae <amcrae@cisco.com> To: dennis@etinc.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The view from here (was Re: ISDN Compression Load on CPU) Message-ID: <199605251840.LAA08624@doberman.cisco.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>know, because I work with cisco hardware engineers every day, >>and I know the effort that goes into *both* hardware and >>software to make products viable. > >I was being cynical. I think most of ciscos stuff is mediocre at >best, particular their wan protocol implementation. I really can't (and won't) comment - I try and avoid exchanges that may degenerate into the usual Usenet pattern. I do think that if you have *specific* criticisms or comments, cisco are open to hearing them. Try cisco@spot.colorado.edu. >>it's not the end of the world to have downtime. PC's can be used in >>this environment, and FreeBSD is a really good fit here. > >perhaps true, but you get a whole lot more bang for your buck. >The big joke is that most equipment is obsolete in a year >or less, so the hardware issue is really almost moot. Well, this is usually true with PCs, but usually people like to install routers for the long term; there are still lots of AGS and 4000s out there, even though they are years old. I wish that people did replace their routers every year; boy, would *that* rocket the stock price :-) >>And for the core routers of the Internet or in a large >>organisation, I suspect that you *would* be fired if >>you tried to use anything except a serious dedicated router. > >you can come pretty close, but not with standard O/Ss. But >i've never claimed that PCs were good candidates for backbone >routers. Its just the 2500s and the 4000s that can be >replaced. Well, perhaps it is true; compare apples with apples - put together the lowest priced configuration and *then* benchmark it. I used to have a PC-route 286 box running that I put together out of scrap. But it couldn't handle 1/10 the traffic that a 4000 could. I suspect that by the time you built a box that performs the same as a 4500 (which is *really* the cisco mid range box), you would be spending similar $$. But if it is as cheap as you say, go do it! Lots of people would buy one, and you would make lotsa $$. >>C'mon guys, use the right tool for the job. Don't tell me >>you can replace routers with PC's. I would like to see the >>PC that can sustain routing of over a million packets per second >>like a fully loaded 7513 can. On the other hand, I have yet >>to see a router run Doom... > >no, but 30 PCs can, for about the same cost as a 7513. Can a >2500 route a million packets per second? Why not just >scrap it then, since its clearly inadaquate by your own standards? I don't understand this argument; are you saying that 30 PCs will do the same job as a 7513? How? And weren't we talking about core routers? What's a 2500 got to do with it? I thought you never claimed that PCs were good candidates for backbone routers? Just what *are* you saying? >and lets be real. Cisco's performance numbers have always >been theoretical. They can't do anything close to what the specs >say. Funny how the numbers are always just about dead on >the theoretical bus maximum. I certainly *must* take exception to that. *Please* don't fall into the Usenet trap of making outrageous statements without any proof of numbers! I personally have run a lot of cisco products at the specified max throughput. Again, be specific! Which products have you tested? What was the configuration? what numbers did you achieve? Which `theoretical bus maximum' number are talking about here? Generally the bottleneck is CPU performance, not the bus bandwidth. Cisco's performance numbers *are* measured values, *not* calculated theoretical numbers. >Perhaps you should check with your own company...Ive heard >they've acquired a few PC card companies.... And also a few frame relay companies, and ATM companies, and about a dozen other companies. Nothing succeeds like success :-) >Dennis Andrew McRae (suspecting that getting on this thread was a mistake)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605251840.LAA08624>