Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

real hardware router VS linux router

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


deric.kwok2000 at gmail

Feb 19, 2009, 6:30 AM

Post #1 of 33 (6957 views)
Permalink
real hardware router VS linux router

Hi All

Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?

Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?

eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp

Thank you for your information


hardenrm at uiuc

Feb 19, 2009, 6:37 AM

Post #2 of 33 (6794 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.

In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
non-moving parts.

Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in
your cost-benefit analysis.

/Ryan

Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
>
> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>
> Thank you for your information

- --
Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192
CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365
2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089
1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm [at] illinois
Urbana, IL 61801

University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
University of Illinois - ICCN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/
YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s
=bsHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


bruce at yoafrica

Feb 19, 2009, 6:37 AM

Post #3 of 33 (6801 views)
Permalink
RE: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Not much really, besides your personal preference and the configurability of
the device (will maintaining some semblance of sanity), there are some very
nice custom linux based appliances out there e.g. vyatta routers, which
boast 10 times throughput of Cisco (2800 series) routers, however it all
comes down to what you want to do.


-----Original Message-----
From: Deric Kwok [mailto:deric.kwok2000 [at] gmail]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:30 PM
To: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: real hardware router VS linux router

Hi All

Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?

Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?

eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp

Thank you for your information


steve at ibctech

Feb 19, 2009, 6:43 AM

Post #4 of 33 (6781 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Ryan Harden wrote:
> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> part of the equation.

Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.

Steve


karnaugh at karnaugh

Feb 19, 2009, 6:44 AM

Post #5 of 33 (6784 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?

Archives have discussed this at extreme length.

The most interesting thing I saw come out of it was this

http://data.guug.de/slides/lk2008/10G_preso_lk2008.pdf

See pictures describing the primary differences.


lists at mtin

Feb 19, 2009, 6:56 AM

Post #6 of 33 (6787 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Imagestream is a very solid and mature solution. In order to head off the
Holy War I am a Cisco guy too. It just depends on your budget and situation.

Justin


> From: Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000 [at] gmail>
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 -0500
> To: <nanog [at] nanog>
> Subject: real hardware router VS linux router
>
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
>
> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>
> Thank you for your information


mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks

Feb 19, 2009, 7:05 AM

Post #7 of 33 (6799 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Well,

Our operation uses linux everywhere and we have our own in house
tiny embedded flavor with all the tools and things that make it suited
for use in big and small boxes as many kinds of router and general
packet flipping appliance. I have confidence built on long term, real
world experience that says I can do this sucessfully, but the price I
pay for it is the knowledge curve and having had to invent the 'right'
mix of stuff, which includes compact flash based boot media, read-only
filesystem, and minimal management (command line via ssh, you need to be
an expert), and as well as having had to select the right hardware
(constraints include power on always, no dumb bios to stop the boot
process, and other issues).

I would never ever reccomend that anyone just 'use linux' for
network appliances. It *can* do the job, but all the baggage of 'pc
hardware' typically conspires to make for less than rock solid. Stuff
like hard disks, which crash malfunction corrupt, and issues like - does
the box power on when power is applied or does someone have to press a
button? (You will note, most commercial hardware like routers and
switches either don't have a power button, or simply default to being
'on' unless you take pains to flip buttons somewhere. But, PC's
typically have a power button you have to press to make it come on). And
there's other issues too - PC Bios's also conspire to get in the way and
stop the boot process. If they detect some sort of error, a key press, a
missing disk, or many other excuses, they stop cold waiting for someone
to 'press f1 to continue', or worse. Also most PC systems also have
single power supply units, and that which are less sturdy construction
and are more likely to burn out at some point than the more heavy duty
commercial grade units you see in commercial router/switch equipment).

The difference then between linux and 'a hardware router' then is
that the manufacturer - cisco, juniper, whomever - has a large degree of
control over the integration between their software and the hardware it
runs on, and can dictate all of the things that makes the product work
like the boot process and it's internal storage and wether there are
sufficient fans and what kind of power supplie(s) are present and wether
there's a hardware watchdog (that works!) and the type of chips serving
as the ethernet controllers (which dictates all kinds of things that the
mnf considers 'features'). It's a long list.

To summarize, you can do many jobs with linux. How WELL you do them,
however, is more of a function of how much exerience and knowledge that
you have. You can also do many jobs with commercial boxes, but how well
you do that job can be expressed more in terms of selecting the right
platform and plugging the right configuration lines into it, and both of
these can easilly be 'done well' in exchange for money (router vendor
support team, etc).

Mike-

Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
>
> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>
> Thank you for your information
>


dave at mvn

Feb 19, 2009, 7:43 AM

Post #8 of 33 (6786 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Ryan Harden wrote:
> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> part of the equation.
>
> In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
> non-moving parts.
>
It's quite possible to build Linux-based devices with few or no moving
parts. Small embedded boards, and flash drives, are common and cheap;
and for low-load situations it's possible to build a passively-cooled
(i.e. no fans, so zero moving parts) system.

Higher-performance setups with a few moving parts (mainly fans) are
still possible, but at some point you have to balance the time and
effort of R&D and performance-tuning your system. If you save a few
thousand dollars on hardware, but spend a few days tweaking everything,
you may not come out ahead after all.

At least two vendors (Imagestream and Mikrotik) offer complete packages
based on Linux; the latter also sells the software separately, for
installation on your own hardware, and both offer support if you need it.

David Smith
MVN.net


BBlackford at nwresd

Feb 19, 2009, 7:54 AM

Post #9 of 33 (6780 views)
Permalink
RE: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.

-b

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Harden [mailto:hardenrm [at] uiuc]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:37 AM
To: Deric Kwok
Cc: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: real hardware router VS linux router

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
part of the equation.

In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
non-moving parts.

Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in
your cost-benefit analysis.

/Ryan

Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>
> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
>
> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>
> Thank you for your information

- --
Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192
CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365
2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089
1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm [at] illinois
Urbana, IL 61801

University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
University of Illinois - ICCN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/
YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s
=bsHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


jbates at brightok

Feb 19, 2009, 8:08 AM

Post #10 of 33 (6778 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Bill Blackford wrote:
> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.

It scales quite well, I'm sure, if you take about 12-16 servers,
interconnect them at 256+ gigabit, build your own communication
protocols between them. Hmmm. This is starting to sound like the Juniper
layout prior to them having hardware. :)

-Jack


patrick at ianai

Feb 19, 2009, 8:23 AM

Post #11 of 33 (6778 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:

> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru
> were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/
> RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec
> becomes a limitation I would think.

I've asked this before and been told you can get PCI cards with
multiple GigE ports, or even build specialized PCI cards that look
like PICs.

So I congratulated them on re-inventing Juniper.

--
TTFN,
patrick


ray at oneunified

Feb 19, 2009, 8:30 AM

Post #12 of 33 (6784 views)
Permalink
RE: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

>
> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were
> to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or
> a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I
> would think.
>

Is anyone building linux/bsd-box add-on cards with off the shelf packet
processors? Maybe something with the likes of
http://www.netlogicmicro.com/ or whatever?


--
Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at
http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.


joelja at bogus

Feb 19, 2009, 8:58 AM

Post #13 of 33 (6787 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
>
>> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were
>> to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL
>> or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a
>> limitation I would think.
>
> I've asked this before and been told you can get PCI cards with multiple
> GigE ports, or even build specialized PCI cards that look like PICs.
>
> So I congratulated them on re-inventing Juniper.

multiport network interfaces substantially predate the existence of asic
based l3 forwarding. I can just barely remember what a router looked
like in 1991, but our compaq and sun pedestal servers certainly had them.

we have variously and in use today as standardized formfactors in
embedded network optimized pc platforms.

cpci (6u eurocard) - which is neither compact nor pci but I digress
pmc
xmc
atca
amc
standard pci-e
mini-pci-e

when when consider that a gen2.0 8x pci-e point-to-point link can carry
~32Gbits/s symmetric the building blocks are certainly there for
multiport interfaces and 4xge or 2x10Gbe per slot interfaces are
relatively de riguer in pc based filewall/ips/network appliance platforms...


if at xip

Feb 19, 2009, 9:15 AM

Post #14 of 33 (6788 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

this plattform can handle about
100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd
http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_Network_Appliances/FW-7550
hardware:
4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit
1gb cf-card
1gb ram

with this hardware even more pps should be possible:
http://www.axiomtek.de/network_appliances/network_appliances/smb_network_security_platform/na820.html
hardware:
7x pcie (1lane each) connected network

add freebsd-net mailinglist people achieved nearly 1.000.000pps with
servers (hp-servers)

I suggest to use freebsd os if quagga is the routing daemon as
quagga runs more stable than on linux.

I have currently 300days uptime at my border routers (2x FW-7550), last
week I had a peak with 230mbit's; no problem to handle.

Kind regards,
ingo flaschberger


steve at ibctech

Feb 19, 2009, 11:02 AM

Post #15 of 33 (6773 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
>
> this plattform can handle about
> 100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd
> http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_Network_Appliances/FW-7550
>
> hardware:
> 4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit
> 1gb cf-card
> 1gb ram
>
> with this hardware even more pps should be possible:
> http://www.axiomtek.de/network_appliances/network_appliances/smb_network_security_platform/na820.html
>
> hardware:
> 7x pcie (1lane each) connected network

A very quick test through a box much like the one in your latter link,
running FBSD 7.1, Quagga, and many IPFW rules, to a machine that is not
very busy:

receiver% netstat -h -w 1
input (Total) output
packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls
1 0 60 1 0 170 0
1 0 60 1 0 170 0
1 0 60 1 0 170 0
1 0 60 1 0 170 0
47K 0 28M 1 0 170 0
132K 0 77M 1 0 170 0
133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0
133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0
131K 0 77M 1 0 170 0
132K 0 77M 1 0 170 0
132K 0 78M 1 0 170 0
133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0

Steve


hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting

Feb 19, 2009, 12:09 PM

Post #16 of 33 (6764 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

On 2/19/2009 9:37 AM, Ryan Harden wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> part of the equation.
>
> In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
> non-moving parts.
>
> Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in
> your cost-benefit analysis.
>
> /Ryan
>
> Deric Kwok wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>>
>> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
>>
>> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>>
>> Thank you for your information
>>
>
> - --
> Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192
> CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365
> 2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089
> 1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm [at] illinois
> Urbana, IL 61801
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> University of Illinois - ICCN
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/
> YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s
> =bsHP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
ssd's remove the spindle from the equation..otherwise they both have
fans that do fail.


billn at billn

Feb 19, 2009, 12:30 PM

Post #17 of 33 (6757 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

You know you're off track when..

What operational relevance does this conversation, or the similiar
ones that came before it, have? Are there a bunch in production
contributing to the degradation of the best route between me and this
video of cute kittens I'm trying to watch? Did something of this breed
cause some eastern europe bgp flappy flappy this week? I've got BGP
and OSPF speaking Linux machines under my care, but I don't think
everyone wants to hear about them unless they're out of control like
the cast of Lord of the Flies set loose in a supermarket.

Having carped, I'm obligated to offer a solution:
The technical discussion is certainly interesting to a small subset of
NANOG participants, I'm sure (I do find it interesting, I promise),
but I'm thinking this conversation is better elsewhere, like a beer &
gear, or might I recommend forming some kind of nanog-shoptalk sub
list? Is there one like it? Something for discussing the network
substrata and not the weather a few layers up? I'm aware of stuff like
c-nsp/j-nsp, but the Linux router crowd has it's own niche and there's
certainly a place for discussing them, I just don't think it's.. here.

- billn


Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

Feb 19, 2009, 12:47 PM

Post #18 of 33 (6772 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 EST, Deric Kwok said:
> Hi All
>
> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?

I'm continually amazed by the number of people who manage to conflate
two entirely different issues here.

There's *TWO* axes here:

| PC-class hardware | routing-blade-architecture hardware
-----------+-----------------------+-----------------------------------
proprietary| |
-----------+-----------------------+-----------------------------------
open-source| |

Kinda like that. A Juniper box (which is a BSD running on something that's
*not* PC-class hardware) is a prime example that it's not "hardware versus
linux" - it's two separate questions.

1) Is PC-class gear "good enough"? Do you have the hardware interfaces
needed, and the I/O backplanes? Or is something with more oomph needed?

2) Does the software running on the box support the feature set you need?


mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks

Feb 19, 2009, 3:56 PM

Post #19 of 33 (6774 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Ryan Harden wrote:
>
>> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
>> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
>> part of the equation.
>>
>
> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
>
> Steve
>
>
I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture'
that DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical
force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off
most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being
accidentally bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many
PC Architecture boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.

'


jgreco at ns

Feb 19, 2009, 3:59 PM

Post #20 of 33 (6761 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

> Ryan Harden wrote:
> > While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> > real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> > part of the equation.
>
> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.

You probably don't want a USB key. Too easy to knock off, etc. Though
for a small enough USB key, like the Kingston microSD-to-USB adapters (like
FCR-MRR+SDC) ... that'd probably be okay.

What we did for a few applications...

FreeBSD 7.1R on a 4GB compact flash, the CF plugged into a CF-to-IDE
converter. In our case we case modded a few Intel ISP 1100 1U servers
to allow the CF to be inserted from the front. Great for VPN service
(either server or client), load balancers, traffic shapers, or smallish
routers.

ad0: 3847MB <CF CARD 4GB 20071116> at ata0-master PIO4

Designed to run with root as read-only-usually, with memory filesystems for
/var and /tmp (logging to a remote syslog server and serial console seem to
address most of the obvious complaints).

This only partially addresses the moving parts concerns, since the system
is still dependent on fans. However, with a passive heatsink, at least the
loss of a single fan isn't critical. And, geez, most of my switch gear has
fans, so at what point do we draw the line? We had a 3Com SuperStack switch
(~10 years old) that we didn't identify as the source of a nasty growly
sound for probably half a decade. :-)

There have been numerous discussions about PC routers on NANOG and other
lists in the past. Short form is, if you know what you're doing and the
tradeoffs and benefits are acceptable, it can really rock. Otherwise,
proceed with caution and do lots of reading.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.


brandon.galbraith at gmail

Feb 19, 2009, 4:01 PM

Post #21 of 33 (6763 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

On 2/19/09, mike <mike-nanog [at] tiedyenetworks> wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> Ryan Harden wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
>>> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
>>> part of the equation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
> I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture' that
> DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical force to
> keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most devices
> with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally
> bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture
> boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.
>

I've used a hot glue gun to glue a USB key to the device/server/etc in
question. Works very well against being bumped or accidentally dislodged.

-brandon


--
Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.400.6992
Email: brandon.galbraith [at] gmail


Stephen.Bailey at uk

Feb 20, 2009, 12:51 AM

Post #22 of 33 (6738 views)
Permalink
RE: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but what about solid state
hard drives? Think they are in the high GB capacity now and solves the
problem of no moving parts?

Although I'm all for hardware based devices, we recently been to Cisco
to see the new Cisco ASR1000 switch uses an underlying Linux kernel :o

Stephen Bailey - Senior Lead Systems Engineer
Network Operations - ISP & DSL

FUJITSU

Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered
Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW

This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents
are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted
and amended or that it is virus-free.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbraith [at] gmail]
Sent: 20 February 2009 00:02
To: mike
Cc: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: real hardware router VS linux router

On 2/19/09, mike <mike-nanog [at] tiedyenetworks> wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> Ryan Harden wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast
as a
>>> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving
pieces
>>> part of the equation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
> I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture'
that
> DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical
force to
> keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most
devices
> with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally
> bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many PC
Architecture
> boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.
>

I've used a hot glue gun to glue a USB key to the device/server/etc in
question. Works very well against being bumped or accidentally
dislodged.

-brandon


--
Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.400.6992
Email: brandon.galbraith [at] gmail


nanog at daork

Feb 20, 2009, 1:16 AM

Post #23 of 33 (6719 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

On 20/02/2009, at 9:51 PM, Bailey Stephen wrote:

> Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but what about solid
> state
> hard drives? Think they are in the high GB capacity now and solves
> the
> problem of no moving parts?


Regular CF works fine.
CF's interface is ATA, so you can drop it in to a PATA hole with a
very simple adapter.

There are plenty of "network appliance" boxes that are designed for
this sort of thing with lots of network holes mounted on the front and
so on. Lots of them have CF card slots on the front as well, just like
many router vendors do.

--
Nathan Ward


bill at edisys

Feb 20, 2009, 1:51 AM

Post #24 of 33 (6715 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

>
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Ryan Harden wrote:
>>
>>> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
>>> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
>>> part of the equation.
>>>
>>
>> Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
> I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture'
> that DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical
> force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off
> most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being
> accidentally bumped / disconnected.

It's already been suggested that a glue gun would be useful here,
especially if you have a thumbnail sized USB drive.

> Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture boxen that
> still do not boot correctly from USB.

This is true, but when you are buying hardware specifically for it's
ability to boot off USB then it's assumed that the purchaser would do
their research, so something of a moot point.

B


leen at consolejunkie

Feb 20, 2009, 11:29 AM

Post #25 of 33 (6668 views)
Permalink
Re: real hardware router VS linux router [In reply to]

William Warren wrote:
> On 2/19/2009 9:37 AM, Ryan Harden wrote:
> While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a
> real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces
> part of the equation.
>
> In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than
> non-moving parts.
>
> Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in
> your cost-benefit analysis.
>
> /Ryan
>
> Deric Kwok wrote:
>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
>>>>
>>>> Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux
>>>> router?
>>>>
>>>> eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your information
>>>>
>
>>
>>

> ssd's remove the spindle from the equation..otherwise they both have
> fans that do fail.

And I had a ticket from a few months ago with one of our transit-providers
because they had a Juniper router reboot, it turned out this was because
a harddisk failure of one of the routing engines.

So 'real'-routers have those moving parts as well. ;-)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.