From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 22 19:26:43 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA13613 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:26:43 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAB13606 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:26:41 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA04529; Thu, 22 Jun 95 20:19:07 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9506230219.AA04529@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router To: tom@uniserve.com (Tom Samplonius) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 20:19:07 MDT Cc: jkh@freebsd.org, evanc@synapse.net, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: from "Tom Samplonius" at Jun 22, 95 05:42:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > That said, be aware that any kind of UN*X box doesn't exactly compete > > with a Cisco in terms of performance. They throw raw hardware at the > > problem whereas we have to do it the hard way, in software. > > The bottleneck certainly can't be in the CPU can it? Where is the > bottleneck with PCI and a good 486 motherboard? I suspect there are bottlenecks everywhere. You can probably start with linear traversal of the routing table and non-seperate reader/writer locks coupled with a lack of kernel preemption. A lot of things could be done to the code to speed it up -- have at it (with Garrett's approval on robustness, of course). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.