Choosing CPU for router

[Gilles WAGNER]

2010/3/17 Jon Otterholm <jon.otterholm at ide.resurscentrum.se>

>
>
>
> Den 2010-03-17 10.12, skrev "Gilles WAGNER" <gillesw at gmail.com>:
>
> > 2010/3/17 Andrew Snow <andrew at modulus.org>
> >
> > Matthias Gamsjager wrote:
> >>
> >>>  Way over the top for simple fw and dhcpd. but how much traffic will
> >>> be involved?
> >>> Investing in a good nics will return more then a pricey cpu and
> >>> motherboard (eec mem is good idea for 24/7 tho).
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> The Supermicro Atom miniserver is more than enough CPU grunt for this
> sort
> >> of routing/ipfw task.  The main reason to go Xeon is if you need ECC
> RAM,
> >> and even then you can get away with just using the cheapest CPU
> available.
> >>
> >>
> >> - Andrew
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >>
> > Hi,
> >
> > That's what I would choose : 2 or more atom miniserver and pfsync. But I
> > don't know how well it can work with ipfw.
> >
> > Gilles
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
> This machine is going to act as access-router serving ~500 FTTH-customers.
> About 500Mbit/s and 200kpps. The big issue is Dummynet, around 1000 pipes
> (2
> pipes/customer).
>
> I don't think an Atom-based machine can handle this, am I wrong?
>
> //Jon
>
> I don't think an atom-based machine can handle this. But what about 4 ? Or
more. D510-based motherboard are cheap and energy efficient. So good
failover by total redundancy, and your router can grow easily (by adding
atom)

But I think this would be harder to configure than a big CPU, with tons of
ram and good NICs.

Gilles