From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jun 2 9:42:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from hq4.springwoodsys.com (client-151-200-124-129.bellatlantic.net [151.200.124.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A808D15907 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from woconnel@bellatlantic.net) Received: from hq4.springwoodsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hq4.springwoodsys.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA11500 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:40:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from woconnel@bellatlantic.net) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:40:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bill O'Connell" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a Dedicated Router Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thanks for all the feedback on this. I've been running several NetWare MPRs for a few years so I'm familiar with the potential limitations of PC-based routers. I was more concerned with the non-compliance issues. Haven't seen anything in the replies that would dissuade me from replacing the MPRs w/FreeBSD given that this is not an Internet core implementation. On 02-Jun-99 Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message