North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: image stream routers
- From: tony sarendal
- Date: Sat Sep 17 12:35:57 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=S5B1KFCfsFTqVhqtWgzsig/Nyr0EG9b38YPOEbRirL0LFBxh045Qc1Yt8YswBlofF0O/+NwqiXG01NCxcUDWqgJDCnm8Lz98QLkAtqzTZV/yDC1j2GIfqe2IPyDo3ui42735hRPEv9PF6jlRQThIpG7JQhD12FMRib2B8Yea0o4=
On 17/09/05, Lincoln Dale <email@example.com> wrote:
> Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
> > I'd be interested to know the relative pros and cons of switching packets in
> > software (Imagestream) versus handing them off to a dedicated ASIC (Cisco,
> > Juniper)
> [without having looked at Imagestream in any way, shape or form..]
> it would be _unlikely_ that any router vendor that wants to support >OC3
> could do so with the 'standard' (non-modified) linux IP stack. if they
> are modifying the 'standard' linux IP stack then its very unlikely that
> one could do so without having to publish the source-code to it. (i.e.
> as per GPL).
> 'standard' linux on standard hardware isn't capable of much more than
> 100K PPS. sure - some folks have a few hundred packets/sec - but these
> are minimalist versus the demonstrated performance of ASIC-based
> forwarding, typically 30M-50M PPS.
Regarding software based forwarding and pps old docs from the FreeBSD
guys claim that the 1Mpps barrier can be broken on a 2.8GHz XEON, with
todays standards a mediocer pc.
A collegue smartbits tested a 1GHz pc, with a full feed and 250k
simoultaneons flows it managed around 250kpps. This also with freebsd
and device polling. It sounds to me like a software based machine can
be plenty fast with good code under the hood.
Tony Sarendal - firstname.lastname@example.org
-= The scorpion replied,
"I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-