|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
darkmoo
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject:
OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
I have a 2048k/2048k SHDSL connection with a few email servers, a web
cache & www server behind it. I wish to deploy a OBSD3.9 packet
filtering bridge.
Im low on hardware resources, & wondering if a Pentium 133Mhz machine
would cope. If not what would be the absolute minimum spec I could get
away with.
--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
void * clvrmnky()
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
darkmoo wrote:
| Quote: | I have a 2048k/2048k SHDSL connection with a few email servers, a web
cache & www server behind it. I wish to deploy a OBSD3.9 packet
filtering bridge.
Im low on hardware resources, & wondering if a Pentium 133Mhz machine
would cope. If not what would be the absolute minimum spec I could get
away with.
Many folks here run similar systems with even lower-powered hardware. |
Unless I'm unaware of a specific requirement for bridging, I'd say you
will be fine.
Make sure you use some recommended and well-supported NICs. I've heard
a rumour that gigabit NICs are often useful even in a 10/100 environment
because of their larger frame caches.
I've also used a trick where you put all the NICs on the same PCI
interrupt but I did not measure to see if it actually helps. There were
certainly fewer I/O interrupts on that box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:37 am Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
Begin <0lP5g.20265$43.5605@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>
On 2006-05-02, void * clvrmnky() <clvrmnky.invalid@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | darkmoo wrote:
I have a 2048k/2048k SHDSL connection [...]
|
<ObNitPick>Data lines are measured in bits/sec and the multipliers are
powers of 10, not 2. You're likely to have something like a 2300 kbits/s
SDSL, as that is apparently a common setup.</>
| Quote: | Many folks here run similar systems with even lower-powered hardware.
Unless I'm unaware of a specific requirement for bridging, I'd say you
will be fine.
|
Depends a bit on the architecture, but indeed the speed of the cpu alone
doesn't tell much. In fact, cisco uses fairly low-powered cpus, but has
custom designed backplanes and all that, to push data around through the
network ports as efficiently as they can make it.
The problem with desktop-oriented hardware, of course, is that it is
engineered for marketing, which means shiny numbers, not necessairily
actual performance, let alone network io performance. Some boards will
perform much better than others. Which does what is hard to tell without
trying. Whether what you have for your packet filtering bridge is good
enough for your needs, (well, the OP's, but anyway) depends heavily on
the traffic, both amount and nature, and what you want to do to that
traffic.
I'd say, try, and keep an eye on things. If you can't get it to keep up
you can always replace it with slightly less obsolete hardware.
| Quote: | Make sure you use some recommended and well-supported NICs. I've heard
a rumour that gigabit NICs are often useful even in a 10/100 environment
because of their larger frame caches.
|
I've heard the reasons include that they are more likely to keep up when
the line is filled with small frames. Getting close to the theoretical
maximum linespeed is much harder in that case, so if you have a lot
of small frames to cope with (eg the TCP ACKs going back to where the
bulk data came from) even with `only' a 100Mbit switch on the other
end, using a Gbit NIC might be helpful. Then again, for just 2Mbit of
traffic, I'd expect a decent 100Mbit NIC to cope just fine.
Good 100Mbit NICs include, in my opinion, digital-now-intel 21143 and
intel 825xx chipset based cards. They *do not* include anything made by
realtek.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fabrice
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:26 am Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:37:00 +0000, jpd wrote:
| Quote: | Good 100Mbit NICs include, in my opinion, digital-now-intel 21143 and
intel 825xx chipset based cards. They *do not* include anything made by
realtek.
|
I've only got realtek cards. Since I've havent had any issues with them.
I've found them to be a good all rounder generic card, after coming from
Dlink cards which always had issues low level issues with my OBSD installs.
Also got a old dlink switch which is slowly dying port by port. Yuck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
Begin <pan.2006.05.04.01.26.29.969000@nospam.net>
On 2006-05-04, darkmoo <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I've only got realtek cards.
|
You might try and get a better card one day, put both in slow machines,
and try to get some real performance out of them. Big packets, small
packets, latency tests, the works. Compare.
| Quote: | Since I've havent had any issues with them. I've found them to be a
good all rounder generic card, [...]
|
For simple desktop use, and/or when you've got the cycles to spare.
Altough tempting because a lot of use is of that kind nowadays, I'd
certainly not classify that as ``all rounder''. Dirt cheap, yes. Often
used, yes. Widely spread, yes. ``All rounder'', no. Hell no, even.
Other people have found that, for example, in a setup with fast desktop
machines sporting 3com cards and a low end router sporting realteks,
swapping the cards so the fast machines had the realteks and the old and
slow router the 3coms, improved performance considerably. And that at no
additional hardware costs.
There are some *interesting* comments about realteks and their
programming interface in the FreeBSD driver source, for example here:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/pci/if_rl.c
?rev=1.163&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
[excuses for the split url]
Basically, what this says means that because of its programming model,
trying to put a lot of packets through the card is cpu-intensive. And,
after all, we *were* talking using old hardware for network i/o.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
void * clvrmnky()
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
darkmoo wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:37:00 +0000, jpd wrote:
Good 100Mbit NICs include, in my opinion, digital-now-intel 21143 and
intel 825xx chipset based cards. They *do not* include anything made by
realtek.
I've only got realtek cards. Since I've havent had any issues with them.
I've found them to be a good all rounder generic card, after coming from
Dlink cards which always had issues low level issues with my OBSD installs.
Also got a old dlink switch which is slowly dying port by port. Yuck!
It's funny. This Realtek argument among BSD users is quite active, |
still. I recall reading something from de Raadt recently where he made
a quality statement about Realtek devices in terms of a before/after.
As in, they suck less now, and may even be recommended. I'll try to dig
up the details.
They are also more forthcoming with documentation, which may explain why
the positive comments lately.
Personally, I only have direct experience with xl and vr devices. The
vr(s) are only recent, and I have not tested them much. The xl(s) seem
to choke on higher amounts of data (of course, this may be a function of
the driver and link-layer code) and they do not respond to heat very
well. At one point I swapped them so that the higher-speed link used
the less flaky NIC. And turned the PS fan back on  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God Rudy
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:26:29 +1000, darkmoo wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 03 May 2006 07:37:00 +0000, jpd wrote:
Good 100Mbit NICs include, in my opinion, digital-now-intel 21143 and
intel 825xx chipset based cards. They *do not* include anything made by
realtek.
I've only got realtek cards. Since I've havent had any issues with them.
I've found them to be a good all rounder generic card, after coming from
Dlink cards which always had issues low level issues with my OBSD
installs. Also got a old dlink switch which is slowly dying port by port.
Yuck!
|
My personal experience with realtek:
- one (or only) interface card is realtek --> NO problem
- multiple realtek cards --> they don't talk to each other!
I.E. no routing possible between realtek cards!
--> no such problems with the "dc" kind of cards!
(at about the same pricetag!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
Begin <qpp6g.20448$43.383@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>
On 2006-05-04, void * clvrmnky() <clvrmnky.invalid@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | It's funny. This Realtek argument among BSD users is quite active,
|
Possibly because they're dirt cheap and consequently ubiquitous. Many
people using current hardware won't notice the drawbacks because they
have the cycles to spare. If you don't have those...
Then again, realtek type hardware (also compare winmodems), has happened
before, and will happen again:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/W/wheel-of-reincarnation.html
| Quote: | still. I recall reading something from de Raadt recently where he made
a quality statement about Realtek devices in terms of a before/after.
As in, they suck less now, and may even be recommended. I'll try to dig
up the details.
|
Please do. It doesn't surprise me though; no engineer worth his salt
would be proud of being told his designs are the absolute bottom of the
pile. The upside is that if you're there, improving isn't exactly hard.
Just look at what the competition is doing.
| Quote: | Personally, I only have direct experience with xl and vr devices. The
vr(s) are only recent, and I have not tested them much. The xl(s) seem
to choke on higher amounts of data (of course, this may be a function of
the driver and link-layer code)
|
Possibly, altough ISTR 3c905 pre C series had various nasty problems.
My bad experiences with those devices are limited to the 3c920, which
supports checksum offloading, and the linux driver that helpfully logs
whenever the card reports a bad incoming TCP checksum (something the
software checksummer does not do), and developer-also-deploying type
persons that won't believe a failed checksum showing up in the logs
isn't the end of the world.
``The driver wouldn't report it if it wasn't serious.'' And how long,
exactly, have you been developing for and using linux AND windows now?
And you still believe that? Thus showing that even generally clued guys
aren't immune to the occasional wetware problem.
| Quote: | and they do not respond to heat very well. At one point I swapped them
so that the higher-speed link used the less flaky NIC. And turned the
PS fan back on
|
Ah, yes. :-)
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
void * clvrmnky()
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:
Re: OBSD Bridge Minimal Hardware Requirements
|
|
|
jpd wrote:
| Quote: | Begin <qpp6g.20448$43.383@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca
On 2006-05-04, void * clvrmnky() <clvrmnky.invalid@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
It's funny. This Realtek argument among BSD users is quite active,
Possibly because they're dirt cheap and consequently ubiquitous. Many
people using current hardware won't notice the drawbacks because they
have the cycles to spare. If you don't have those...
Then again, realtek type hardware (also compare winmodems), has happened
before, and will happen again:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/W/wheel-of-reincarnation.html
still. I recall reading something from de Raadt recently where he made
a quality statement about Realtek devices in terms of a before/after.
As in, they suck less now, and may even be recommended. I'll try to dig
up the details.
Please do. It doesn't surprise me though; no engineer worth his salt
would be proud of being told his designs are the absolute bottom of the
pile. The upside is that if you're there, improving isn't exactly hard.
Just look at what the competition is doing.
The recent KernelTrap interview <http://kerneltrap.org/node/4118> he |
praises Realtek for not providing docs and having firmware-free wireless
chipsets. He has singled out Realtek in at least one other place.
I'm thinking maybe he's just giving them kudos for being nice people and
sharing docs and making generally acceptable wireless chipsets.
Well, if this is the case for NICs as well, then I guess OBSD can more
easily code around bugs. Here's hoping.
| Quote: |
Personally, I only have direct experience with xl and vr devices. The
vr(s) are only recent, and I have not tested them much. The xl(s) seem
to choke on higher amounts of data (of course, this may be a function of
the driver and link-layer code)
Possibly, altough ISTR 3c905 pre C series had various nasty problems.
My bad experiences with those devices are limited to the 3c920, which
supports checksum offloading, and the linux driver that helpfully logs
whenever the card reports a bad incoming TCP checksum (something the
software checksummer does not do), and developer-also-deploying type
persons that won't believe a failed checksum showing up in the logs
isn't the end of the world.
It turns out, I have one of each: a 3c905 on the outside and a 3c905C on |
the inside. If memory serves, they used to be in opposite positions
which would have made the internal one the 3c905.
At any rate, since swapping them I have not had obvious problems, but I
suspect the 3c905 on the outside is the source of the errors being
logged under higher data rates (sorry, I do not have the logs handy, so
this may be complete bullshit). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:59 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Credit Cards UK | Free website & online homepage | Loans | Debt Consolidation | Directory
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
BSD
»
OpenBSD
