On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Bakul Shah wrote:
This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
Flood ping neither floods nor is synchronous. As documented, it outpu
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 01:32:25AM +0200, Christopher Arnold wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> >There are no NICs known that can do packet forwarding offload.
> >And neither is there support in FreeBSD for that. You're probably
> >confusing this with checksum offloadin
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:56:22PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
> > way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
>
> Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
>
> > Stock FreeBSD 6.2 or 7.0 can easil
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Andre Oppermann wrote:
There are no NICs known that can do packet forwarding offload.
And neither is there support in FreeBSD for that. You're probably
confusing this with checksum offloading or TSO (TCP segmentation
offloading) which isn't an issue with packet forwarding
> This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
> way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
> Stock FreeBSD 6.2 or 7.0 can easily do 500kpps with good network
> cards and fastforwarding enabled. On a
Bakul Shah wrote:
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
execution of critical userland processes. I have experience before that a
FreeBSD box configured as router appears to slow down the userland processes
when the traffic load is high. I have verified th
> One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
> execution of critical userland processes. I have experience before that a
> FreeBSD box configured as router appears to slow down the userland processes
> when the traffic load is high. I have verified this lately on
Kirc Gover wrote:
Hi Gary, Thanks for your response.
Yes, the bus architecture would be either PCI-X or PCI-Express. Host CPU would
be a high performance multi-core such as Xeon and NICs would be Intel.
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the execution
o
Hi Gary, Thanks for your response.
Yes, the bus architecture would be either PCI-X or PCI-Express. Host CPU would
be a high performance multi-core such as Xeon and NICs would be Intel.
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
execution of critical userland
Hi Louis, Thanks for your response. I appreciate it a lot.
The router would be deployed at the service provider network that will
terminate roughly 4000 (maximum) individual customers and corporate
networks/VPNs. We have decided to integrate control plane, data plane and
management plane functi
Kirc Gover wrote:
We are in the stage of planning and research for a commercial development of an
edge router that will be based mostly on OpenSource software. I would like to
solicit for information and recommendation if FreeBSD is a suitable OS. The
router is expected to withstand forwarding
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:06:54AM +1000, Kirc Gover wrote:
> We are in the stage of planning and research for a commercial development of
> an edge router that will be based mostly on OpenSource software. I would like
> to solicit for information and recommendation if FreeBSD is a suitable OS.
* Kirc Gover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070906 11:10] wrote:
> We are in the stage of planning and research for a commercial development of
> an edge router that will be based mostly on OpenSource software. I would like
> to solicit for information and recommendation if FreeBSD is a suitable OS.
> Th
13 matches
Mail list logo
