Joshua, On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 13:59, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: > I've searched the list archives and haven't found any information on this. > > I realize that many users are routing in a home or small office > environment but I think there is also a place for "enterprise" > routing. But knowing how to configure the software is only part > of a low-latency router--you also need good hardware. Yes, but sometimes software in conjunction with how you using the hardware. Not one or the other. However as I will mention below I have a dinosaur that screams. However I totally agree with you on the "enterprise" aspect. They stand to gain the most. I just won't say that to my buddies that are engineers over at Cisco. > Are there any thoughts on good configurations? > NICs: I've seen several mentions of the Intel eepro NICs. Are they best? I prefer Intel cards. Most of my nics are Intel Pro100 S adapters using Intel's e100 driver and I couldn't be happier. However some prefer some of Intel's other drivers that can be fully compiled into the kernel. Personally I prefer my drivers to be loaded by the kernel, and not part of. Everything else I do compile into the kernel. It just so happens I also have also have a Linksys LNE100TX on a picky machine that will not accept the Intel's? It uses the tulip driver, and I have never been able to force duplex and speed on that card. It wants to remain in auto-negotiate mode? Luckily the machine is not a critical one. Just a spare machine used for fun and headaches. Since others say that tulip is a good driver I will assume that nic is a piece of s***. Another chipset I absolutely hate is anything from National Semiconductor using the 83815 chipset and the dp83815 driver. Another one that I have never been able to force duplex and speed. Now another really cool thing about Intel nics I like is IANS. Look into it, as there is much you can do with it. > Processor: speeds probably don't matter too much (my Cisco 3640 router > with 4 T1s has a 100Mhz processor, though it's RISC and has optimized IOS) > but faster processors have faster FSB as well > Memory: 128 MB probably enough to deal with 100Mb? > HD: Obviously you want everything in memory, but if you're doing much > logging you might get a solid-state disk. I would think RAM, the type of RAM and the bus speed to mean more than the proc. I would imagine 128 to be plenty, depending on how much space is used for your root file system and how much is left over to be used as memory. Although I doubt you could go wrong with more memory. FYI, while my network is much smaller with a smaller load, I have seen some pretty substantial differences in my Linux gear, and my dedicated networking devices. I have a load balancing (sort of) Linux router as my core router. It an old machine that boots off a zip disk and runs entirely out of RAM. 75mhz Pentium, with 32mb RAM, 16 for file system, 16 for memory. Ancient RAM. Maybe on a good day 66mhz bus? All tests so far show that the latency of packets going through it is on average half that of the latency of packets going through either one of my Netopia routers, or my Cicso 827. The Linux router responds twice as fast when being pinged. So there could definitely be some gains. Although there could also be some draw backs. That depends on your situation. > I've done a little comparison testing of prebuilt firewall routers with a > few little DLink/Sonicwall/Netgear boxes vs. an Athlon running IPCop, but > I'm sure someone has done better hardware tests than mine. That would not be me. ;) -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Obsidian-Studios, Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com
