RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:20 PM
Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing line rate forwarding on an OC-192.
I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390 hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to slow to keep that box busy. <GRIN>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:20 PM
Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing line rate forwarding on an OC-192.
I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390 hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to slow to keep that box busy.
.. actually, if only the PCI bus were faster, I'm sure someone could build a GigE linerate router running under FreeBSD or Linux. OC192 would probably want something a little more dedicated than a PCI bus. But then, thats what a Juniper is for, right? :-) Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "Two hundred and thirty-three thousand <adrian@creative.net.au> times the speed of light. Dear holy <censored>."
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:42:16AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:20 PM Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing line rate forwarding on an OC-192. I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390 hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to slow to keep that box busy.
we've got a client who is playing with linux/390. it's such a ... anti-climax. it looks and smells just like linux on a pee cee.
.. actually, if only the PCI bus were faster, I'm sure someone could build a GigE linerate router running under FreeBSD or Linux.
OC192 would probably want something a little more dedicated than a PCI bus. But then, thats what a Juniper is for, right? :-)
i always thought the JUNOS was basically FreeBSD with the routing table code re-written. the remarks about freenix being able/unable to run at these speeds (hardware bus notwithstanding) seem out of place, as i think the real sleight-of-packet happens on hardware blades; the supervisory operating system doesn't play much of a part here. i'm sure many of us agree that Windows XP will be industrial-strength enough to do the job, too. ;-> -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:27:37 PDT, Roeland Meyer said:
I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390 hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to slow to keep that box busy.
OK.. so we look here: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/networking/news.html and see: "Clustered z900 can deliver up to 96 GIGABYTES per second (786 gigabits per second) of networking bandwidth to help you tackle your transaction traffic explosion. This is equivalent to the bandwidth of 9,600 ten megabyte per second ESCON networking device attachments." However.... A FICON interface is 70MBytes/sec. A new z/Series 900 comes with 96 of them, and you can cluster a bunch of 900s (though I dont know if Linux supports the clustering). However, I poked on IBM's web site, and found this: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/networking/linux.html Fastest I see listed there is gigabit - and even *that* has a problem, in that it's 125 MBytes/second if you sustain it - over-running a FICON. Looks to me like 96 gigabytes/second is a cluster of 16 z-900's, each with 96 gigabits running at 50% capacity.... I don't see where IBM has a S/390 box that can drive 2 OC-192s at line speed. Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
participants (4)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Henry Yen -
Roeland Meyer -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu