LARTC - Oct 2006 - Intel or AMD is better processor for router (800+ users)

Hi

I would like to ask you which processor is beter solution for router? Please 
shortly  explain why?

 I have about 800 users. For each I create 2 htb classes and 4 filters. 
Moreower router have dhcp serwer and lots of iptables rules.

I''m interested in P4 3Ghz HT and AMD Athlon 64 3000+. What is beter
choice for
my needs? What parametrs of processors are important: clock, cache, fsb or 
something else ?

Thanks in advance

Pozdrawiam
Szymon Turkiewicz

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:05:42PM +0200, sAwAr wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I would like to ask you which processor is beter solution for router?
Please
> shortly  explain why?
> 
>  I have about 800 users. For each I create 2 htb classes and 4 filters. 
> Moreower router have dhcp serwer and lots of iptables rules.
> 
> I''m interested in P4 3Ghz HT and AMD Athlon 64 3000+. What is
beter choice for
> my needs? What parametrs of processors are important: clock, cache, fsb or 
> something else ?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
I would go for a big cache.. and of course more MHz the better. Also be sure
to calculate the memory requirements, each conntracked connection requires
some kernel memory. 

I would recommend choosing HP, IBM or other good brand for firewall like that.

I was firewalling+natting+routing 2000+ users for years with P3 1GHz without
any problems. 

-- Pasi 
       
                                   ^
                                .     .
                                 Linux
                              /    -    \
                             Choice.of.the
                           .Next.Generation.

sAwAr wrote:
> I would like to ask you which processor is beter solution for router?
Please
> shortly  explain why?
I''d like to add a question.

What Gigabit PCI-E NICs do people prefer for a server/router. What would 
be the maximum bandwidth to expect between two Gigabit NICs connecting 
two subnets? How important is the processor when the packets are not 
mangled/NAT-ted, only routed?

Thanks,
	Alex

> Hi
Hi
> I''m interested in P4 3Ghz HT and AMD Athlon 64 3000+. What is
beter
> choice for my needs? What parametrs of processors are important:
> clock, cache, fsb or something else ?
I think you could do well with P4 3GHz HT. It would be cheapest and
most effective choice. With HT enabled kernel two nic-s could be
configured that each nic''s interrupt is serviced by another
processor. 

I recommend reading this article:
http://lwn.net/Articles/145406/

P4 will suffice as long as you will keep your config optimised (hashing
tc filters, using ipset instead of long sequences of iptables
rules ...). 

cheers,
Marek Kierdelewicz

Marek Kierdelewicz wrote:
> I think you could do well with P4 3GHz HT. It would be cheapest and
> most effective choice. With HT enabled kernel two nic-s could be
> configured that each nic''s interrupt is serviced by another
> processor. 
> 
> I recommend reading this article:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/145406/
> 
> P4 will suffice as long as you will keep your config optimised (hashing
> tc filters, using ipset instead of long sequences of iptables
> rules ...). 
Hi,

The referenced article mentions this in the chapter "4.2.3.1  CPUs 
should only following one NIC".

The author highly recommends disabling IRQ balancing in the kernel 
config, but does not clarify what this does. I tried googling but
didn''t
find much info. What does it exactly do, and why is disabling it 
recommended/required?

It seems to me, IRQ balancing does not allow to specify interrupts per 
device but assigns them automatically on the run, correct?

While searching the web, I found reports about big performance increases 
in 3D rendering due to disabling the feature. Can this be true and why?

Thanks,
	Alex

> The author highly recommends disabling IRQ balancing in the kernel 
> config, but does not clarify what this does. I tried googling but
> didn''t find much info. What does it exactly do, and why is
disabling
> it recommended/required?
I haven''t seen irq balance option in kernels for some time now. 
> It seems to me, IRQ balancing does not allow to specify interrupts
> per device but assigns them automatically on the run, correct?
It seems so. As I mentioned earlier I havn''t seen irq balance option in
recent kernels. Static irq2cpu assignment works well (even on HT
processors).
> While searching the web, I found reports about big performance
> increases in 3D rendering due to disabling the feature. Can this be
> true and why?
I don''t have a clue. I can say one thing - static irq2cpu assignment
worx4me on linux routers hauling 400+kpps. Without it only one
core/processor would be used.

cheers,
Marek Kierdelewicz