hi
in plan to replace my firewall boxes with new systems.
i have 6 aktive interfaces where are 3 internal networks ( 1Gbit )
an 2 where the internet traffic goes.
after the announcement of 4.4 release i prefer the sun T 1000 system
with 8 interfaces as replace box.
what are you thinking it is an
On 2008-04-02, John Brahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fanless micro atx system. I was hoping to get some suggestions from
> y'all. I know there is a hardware compatibility list at
> http://www.openbsd.org but I was looking for specific experience with
> motherboards with supported ethernet chips (
Hi Everyone,
I wanted to find out if anyone has experience with creating home
automation systems using OpenBSD. I was planning on buying a random
fanless micro atx system. I was hoping to get some suggestions from
y'all. I know there is a hardware compatibility list at
http://www.openbsd.org but I
Hi Claudio,
On Fri, 13.10.2006 at 16:00:55 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw. 500kpps traffic as seen on the net is more than 3Gbps.
I calculated this number as roughly the upper limit for a 100 MBit/s
link. I wanted to make sure that the box doesn't melt down in case
someone
On Saturday 14 October 2006 08:28, Rogier Krieger wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing me to bioctl - I was unaware about that - but I
> > don't offhand see how I could eg. collect SMART status on the drives
> > hanging off such a card.
>
> IIRC, you
On 10/13/06, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for pointing me to bioctl - I was unaware about that - but I
don't offhand see how I could eg. collect SMART status on the drives
hanging off such a card.
IIRC, you cannot collect the SMART status on individual drives.
Personally, I do
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:16:05PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi Claudio,
>
> first, I'd like to thank you for your comment.
>
> On Fri, 13.10.2006 at 16:00:55 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 500kpps sustained is a crazy amount of packets (especially think about
> > possible
Claudio Jeker wrote:
500kpps sustained is a crazy amount of packets (especially think about
possible peaks). Currently you can fine tune a OpenBSD box to do over
450kpps but there is not much headroom left for peaks.
It is better to split the load on two routers that do 250kpps each.
Additional
Claudio Jeker wrote:
500kpps sustained is a crazy amount of packets (especially think about
possible peaks). Currently you can fine tune a OpenBSD box to do over
450kpps but there is not much headroom left for peaks.
[snip]
On what hardware is that possible? Can you point to any guides or other
Hello Rogier,
On Fri, 13.10.2006 at 13:38:32 +0200, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[...] whether I should stick with RAIDframe [...] or if I should go for
> >hardware RAID instead [...]
>
> Personally, I find using hardware RAID
Hi Claudio,
first, I'd like to thank you for your comment.
On Fri, 13.10.2006 at 16:00:55 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 500kpps sustained is a crazy amount of packets (especially think about
> possible peaks). Currently you can fine tune a OpenBSD box to do over
> 450kpps but
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:07:25PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to find systems that can be used _well_ with OpenBSD. The
> applications are "middle class" BGP routers with hopefully more than
> 500kpps sustained, and web and database servers. With RAID, I'm
> currently unde
On 10/13/06, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] whether I should stick with RAIDframe [...] or if I should go for
hardware RAID instead [...]
Personally, I find using hardware RAID a lot easier. You can stick
with GENERIC kernels and have fewer problems on installing/upgrading.
For m
Hello,
I am trying to find systems that can be used _well_ with OpenBSD. The
applications are "middle class" BGP routers with hopefully more than
500kpps sustained, and web and database servers. With RAID, I'm
currently undecided whether I should stick with RAIDframe and be able
to use smartmont
On 2006/10/13 02:24, Jeffrey Lim wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> >> I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
> >> of course: Intel and AMD.
> >
> >There are more options than just those. mac
On 10/8/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
> of course: Intel and AMD.
There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst
the faster arch's too
is
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Cabillot Julien wrote:
> It's no very expensive, the "electric consumption" (I don't know if this
> expression is ok), the size, ...
>
> On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP
> > What advantages do you see from building a DNS server using
> > armish?
>
On 2006/10/12 15:42, Cabillot Julien wrote:
> It's no very expensive, the "electric consumption" (I don't know if this
> expression is ok), the size, ...
... socketed RAM, serial console :-)
On Oct 12, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Cabillot Julien wrote:
It's no very expensive, the "electric consumption" (I don't know if
this
expression is ok), the size, ...
On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oc
Hi Julien,
> It's no very expensive, the "electric consumption" (I don't know if this
> expression is ok), the size, ...
This also holds true for Via Epia Mini-ITX boards, btw. Plus, most fit in
an 1U 19" enclosure or any standard (micro) ATX case.
That said, I know nothing of armish.
Buhbye...
It's no very expensive, the "electric consumption" (I don't know if this
expression is ok), the size, ...
On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> >
> > > I meant more C
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote:
>
> > I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant
> > amount of money! That's it.
>
> Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are
> the intended uses? For examp
I would use them for a X server. It will serve about 128 X clients.
On 10/8/06, Diana Eichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money!
> That's it.
Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money!
> That's it.
Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended
uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of
the platforms recently
On 08/10/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/10/07 18:08, Brian wrote:
> > There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst
> > the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are
> > more to choose from). Motherboard chipsets also ma
On 2006/10/07 18:08, Brian wrote:
> > There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst
> > the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are
> > more to choose from). Motherboard chipsets also make a *HUGE* difference,
> > of course.
>
> I am looking at
Gustavo Rios wrote:
I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money!
That's it.
Then go for AMD, they have more instructions then Intel that now try to
catch up to them!
So, call it more instructions machine per dollar if you like that!
I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money!
That's it.
On 10/7/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
> of course: Intel and AMD.
There are mor
On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
> of course: Intel and AMD.
There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst
the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are
more to choo
Gustavo Rios wrote:
I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
of course: Intel and AMD. For the 64 bit version, which delivers the
best relation price/benefits?
Thanks in advance.
Why even asked these days!
Until Intel come clean, use AMD.
I don't understand why
I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options
of course: Intel and AMD. For the 64 bit version, which delivers the
best relation price/benefits?
Thanks in advance.
31 matches
Mail list logo
