Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@info.iet.unipi.it> To: Derrick MacPherson <derrick@mercuryfilmworks.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AltQ/dummynet & IP accounting.. Message-ID: <200007201522.RAA56588@info.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007200801180.1012-100000@web.mercuryfilmworks.com> from Derrick MacPherson at "Jul 20, 2000 08:04:23 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > for that, probably a picobsd-based bridge does the job fairly well. > > there is a floppy image at http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/ > > which also has Weighted Fair Queueing enabled. > > How would this handle a 10 meg connection and +400 machines? Is it going > to bog down significantly? wWhat about if I add full firewalling > capabalities? it all depends on the CPU and cards you have. We have one such bridge with a 350 or 400 MHz CPU, Intel ("fxp") cards on a 100Mbit net and it does not seem to harm too much. At 10Mbit/s i am pretty sure you will only notice little more than the store&forward latency introduced by the bridge. Of course the more rules you have (for firewalling) the slower the system is, but typically if you use dynamic rules, after the initial match you have O(1) cost per packet, and the WF2Q+ algorithm has O(log N) cost where N is the number of flows. cheers luigi -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) Mobile +39-347-0373137 -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007201522.RAA56588>