hasn't that been talked about a dozen times lately... * Richard Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-14 11:33]: > I recall hearing tell (on here I think) that amd64 is a better arch for > routing, because of better interrupt handling or somesuch. Is this true?
i386 used too be much better. it is time this gets tested again. > I am under the impression that if I want to do BGP, I need 1GB of RAM > for the routing tables and whatnot. Given RAM is so cheap, and I'd like > some future-proofing, is there any use in getting 2G instead? why not... more than 2G probably hurts more than it helps, but 2g should be fine. so should one. > Is PF capable of making good use of multiple processors with GENERIC.MP, no > or am I better off with a single faster CPU? yes > I'm currently looking at a Dell PE860 (1U, Quad core [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1G > RAM) or a Dell PE SC1435 (1U, Dual core [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1G RAM). They're > near enough the same price, so its just a question of what will be best > suited to running PF. My ignorant thought would be that 4 cores is > better than 2, but if PF only uses one core perhaps if the Opteron has > better interrupt handling then AMD would be the better choice. Is it > relevant that the Xeon has 2x4MB cache and the Opteron has 2x1MB? more cache could help quite a bit. on the other hand, opteron has way faster memory access, that helps too... -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
