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
11 matches
Mail list logo