*BSD News Article 58459


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!news.sol.net!uniserve!van-bc!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news3.near.net!sol.caps.maine.edu!web.ddp.state.me.us!gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us!isdmill
From: isdmill@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (David Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD router, as good as a harware router ?
Date: 8 Jan 1996 17:47:00 GMT
Organization: Maine State Government
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4crlak$1h4@web.ddp.state.me.us>
References: <4cof7j$59@news.mistral.co.uk> <4cpjil$k1l@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Jordan K. Hubbard (jkh@violet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <4cof7j$59@news.mistral.co.uk>, Pete <plaker@cybar.co.uk> wrote:
: >I've been convinced that FreeBSD would be a good OS for my pentium
: >mail/web/news/ftp LAN server, but can FreeBSD on a seperate
: >386 really be as reliable and more monitorable and configurable than
: >the 'black box' option ?  If so, this is much much cheeper, why
: >doesn't EVERYBODY do this instead of spending a fortune on a hardware
: >router ?  

: There's also throughput to consider.  If I was routing 3-4 (10Mb) LANs
: with a lot of inter-lan traffic to deal with, I'd probably get the
: router also.   A box that does nothing else but route packets is going to
: blow the doors off an all-in-software solution that's capable of doing
: everything from routing packets to running vi.  200-300K/sec is what you'll
: typically get in lan-to-lan routing with a FreeBSD box, whereas 700-800K/sec
: is more likely with a nice Cisco router.


Just one datapoint here.  I setup a bsdi PC (90 MHz pentium, lots of ram, 
3com and WD cards) and got well over 800K/sec with some FTP's.

Caveat - very simple setup, nearly empty routing tables, and no gated.  
Just thought I'd throw it in as a datapoint.

I've been told that the indicated CPU utilization (3%) was simply not 
possible on an ISA bus, but PCI should do away with the problems soon 
enough:)



--
David Miller			Usual disclaimers apply