North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: image stream routers
- From: tony sarendal
- Date: Sat Sep 17 14:26:11 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=Msi0zrgh8cWjjt296y3KCtE4SbaCNklxqKELpmnE/VLp+YauVf0vi5xt/rvVVfdqc341EDVhI6jBzrz3GTGjOlIVTOEBaiQShkCLwLiFFCxEhOFYmm24O3HTUPqeiZL/8hKHKfK7Wd5lVkyQ3z86i4qYLVJ3AWi0Gvpxa5q28qk=
On 17/09/05, tony sarendal <dualcyclone@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/09/05, sthaug@nethelp.no <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Sorry, in today's world of high-end routers 250kpps doesn't qualify as
> > "plenty fast". Can your box do linerate Gigabit Ethernet with minimum
> > size packets, on several ports simultaneously?
> >
>
> I didn't say that a 250kpps box was a high-end box.
> One reliable Mpps is not high-end either, but it can carry quite a lot
> of Mbps. What is C or M price for a reliable full feed Mpps ?
>
> "My" high-end boxes never manage to impress me with their pps
> capability before I'm disapointed in their reliability.
>
I'll reply to myself before Steinar does =)
>It sounds to me like a software based machine can
> be plenty fast with good code under the hood.
In my experience a datacenter pumping out 1Gbps is usually doing
200-250kpps in that direction. Considering this a box capable of
around 1Mbps is "plenty fast".
pps/$ would be pretty good if I could use those in real life...
/Tony
--
Tony Sarendal - dualcyclone@gmail.com
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
"I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
|
