Pretty much what everyone else said. I'm a huge linux person, almost everything I use is linux, run full Myth set up etc, but I wouldn't use it for a high PPS situation like this. It's just asking for suffering later, at the worst possible times.
-Blake On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Shawn Wilson <ag4ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net> wrote: > >Once upon a time, Shawn Wilson <ag4ve...@gmail.com> said: > >> I was hoping someone could give technical insight into why this is > >good or not and not just "buy a box branded as a router because I said > >so or your business will fail". I'm all for hearing about the business > >theory of running an ISP (not my background or day job) but didn't > >think that's what the OP was asking about (and it didn't seem they were > >taking business suggestions very well anyway). > > > >There's been some technical insight here I would say. I'm a big Linux, > >Open Source, and Free Software advocate, and I'll use Linux-based > >systems for routing/firewalling small stuff, but for high speed/PPS, > >get > >a router with a hardware forwarding system (I like Juniper myself). > > > >You can build a decently-fast Linux (or *BSD) system, but you'll need > >to > >spend a good bit of time carefully choosing motherboards, cards, etc. > >to > >maximize packet handling, possibly buying multiple of each to find the > >best working combination. Make sure you buy a full set of spares once > >you find a working combination (because in the PC industry, six months > >is a lifetime). Then you have to build your OS install, tweaking the > >setup, network stack, etc. > > > >After that, you have to stay on top of updates and such (so plan for > >more reboots); while on a hardware-forwarding router you can mostly > >partition off the control plane, on a Linux/*BSD system, the base OS is > >the forwarding plane. Also, if something breaks, falls over under an > >attack, etc., you're generally going to be on your own to figure it > >out. > >Maybe you can Google the answer (and hope it isn't "that'll be fixed in > >kernel 3.<today's version+2>. Not saying that doesn't happen with > >router vendors (quoting RFCs at router engineers is "fun"), but it is > >IMHO less often. > > > >The question becomes: what is your time worth? You could spend > >hundreds > >of hours going from the start to your satisfactory in-service router, > >and have a potentially higher upkeep cost. Can you hire somebody with > >all the same Linux/*BSD knowlege as yourself, so you are not on-call > >for > >your home-built router around the clock? > > > >I've used Linux on all my computers for almost 20 years, I develop on > >Linux, and contribute to a Linux distribution. However, when I want to > >record TV to watch later, I plug in a TiVo, not build a MythTV box. > >There is a significant value in "just plug it in and it works", and if > >you don't figure your time investment (both up-front and on-going) into > >the cost, you are greatly fooling yourself. > > I agree with all of this to some degree. IDK whether cost of ownership on > a hardware router or a desktop is more or less - I jus haven't done the > research. We use them at work and at home I have Cisco and Linksys gear > (plus Linux doing some things the router could like DHCP) - go figure. > > I agree that some network cards and boards work better than others (and am > partial to the Intel Pro cards - though I'm unsure if they're still the > best). I would also hesitate to route that much traffic with a PC. Though, > I have no technical reason for this bias. > > If you have hardware in production, you really should have a spare - > whether we're talking servers, HDDs, batteries, or routers. Ie, that > comment is not unique to servers. I also don't think warranty has any > bearing on this - I've seen servers stay down for over a day because (both > HP and Dell for their respective hardware) screwed up and the company > didn't budget for a spare board and I've seen a third of a network be taken > out because multiple switch ports just died. How much would a spare switch > have cost compared to 50 people not online? > > At any rate, I'm interested in this because I've worked in both > environments and haven't seen a large difference between the two approaches > (never worked at an ISP or high bandwidth web environment though). I do > like the PC router approach because it allows more versatility wrt dumping > packets (no need to dig out that 10mbit dumb hub and throttle the whole > network), I can run snort or do simple packet inspection with iptables > (some routers can do this but most can't or require a license). So I'm > sorta leaning to the PC router as being better - maybe not cheaper but > better. > >