On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:28, John Hawley wrote: > I just priced out a Cisco to handle multiple T1's for our Internet access. > $15K+, ack! > > Just wondering. Anyone have any experience using the Cyclades-PC300 > boards? I've already converted the my network services from M$ to > Debian/Linux and have nothing against converting our router from Ci$co if > Linux can match the stability.
Firstly I suggest reading and/or subscribing to the Portslave mailing list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxrouter.org/mailman/listinfo/portslave Cyclades people are on the list (but they keep a very low profile). Portslave is used on much Cyclades hardware including in the dedicated hardware boxes they sell. There's many people there who can discuss the down-stream use of Cyclades products (E1 == 30 analog modems), and some people who can discuss the upstream use (E1 == 2Mb of net access). On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:01, Peter Billson wrote: > I don't have experience with the Cyclades boards but I use Sangoma > (www.sangoma.com) cards in a POTS PIII box and it doesn't even register > a load average saturating multiple T's and multiple NICS. That is what you expect. Sending a few megabits of data around isn't that difficult really. > Sangoma's support has been fantastic and the box has never failed to > operate properly in over a year... for 10% of the cost of a Cisco. Yes, Sangoma and Cyclades are among the good companies that release the source to all their drivers making it easier for us. I installed an Emerging Technologies card for one of my clients (binary-only kernel module) and have really regretted it. I wish the client had enough budget to allow them to throw away that ET junk and get a Sangoma. > We are currently working to get it running off of a CD-ROM so that we > can eliminate the hard drive as a possible point of failure. Linux Why do you expect a CD-ROM to be more reliable than a hard drive? Why not just use software RAID on two hard drives? Or if you want to be really advanced get a flash disk... On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:20, Bao C. Ha wrote: > I have used the Cyclades PC300. They are pricey > but good stuff. By PC pricing standards Cyclades products are expensive. They have a smaller market and they are server products. Compare them to Cisco products etc and they seem quite cheap! > What Cisco routers are you > comparing against? I need the CPU/memory that > the low-end Ciscos, 2600/3600, don't make it. There's lots of other issues when comparing a Cisco to a machine with a Cyclades card. With a PC router you could easily put a web server to show stats on the router (instead of monitoring it by SNMP and doing the stats elsewhere). With a PC you can easily expand it etc. With a PC a buffer overflow doesn't necessarily mean the entire machine is dead (unlike Cisco products). Also PCs have lots of spare CPU power which is REALLY useful for running tcpdump type programs. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page