On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 03:22:24AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> >I don't believe that routing load is factored into this load average.
> >To get a measurement, you'd need some kernel profiling tools (cant
> >think of any now though).
> >
> Although having the kernel CPU times be accurate, etc., I think its
> more important to know how much overall bandwidth was achieved with a
> 486 as a router, with and without QoS or other rules on. If the speed
> doesn't get slower (except where limiting is enforced, of course), then
> its a big enough machine (and we can all buy up a bunch of old 486 stock
> to build Linux-based router appliances).
in terms of raw speed, the cpu chip doesn't make all that much difference.
a cisco 2501, for instance, is a 20Mhz 68030 (think Mac SE/30 here).
a modern floppy drive controller can spew bits faster than a T-1.
of more importance is probably what else is going on (filtering,
dynamic routing table maintenance, packet assembly/reassembly/inspection,
multiple links, fast ethernet, etc), and bus-related bottlenecks.
i think either linux or freebsd, properly stripped down, could handle
a T-1/ethernet combo, with modest routing rules, with ease on a 486
(just make sure you give it lots of memory, like at least 32MB).
also, an efficient set of wan/lan cards will make a big difference.
ref: www.linuxrouter.org (a disk-less, fan-less single-floppy linux
"distribution" for "instant router" functionality).
--
Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
