On 2007/11/14 10:11, Richard Wilson wrote:

quoted text
> I recall hearing tell (on here I think) that amd64 is a better arch for

> routing, because of better interrupt handling or somesuch. Is this true?

OpenBSD/amd64 used to be worse than OpenBSD/i386 on the same hardware,

I'm not sure about now - I haven't seen any recently published i386 vs

amd64 results.
> I am under the impression that if I want to do BGP, I need 1GB of RAM

quoted text
> for the routing tables and whatnot.

Depends which routes you take. You probably want 1GB if you receive

full routes. Given there's no cisco tax on RAM here, this is quite

viable. :-)
> Given RAM is so cheap, and I'd like some future-proofing, is there

quoted text
> any use in getting 2G instead?

bgpd uses a bunch of memory during 'bgpctl reload'; my normally

<100Mb RDE processes on full table routers rise to around 300M while

that happens - free ram on a 1G RAM box drops to around 480M with

views of 230k + 66k + 170k routes.
(This lasts for a couple of minutes with 2700-line filters on

an opteron 144).
So 1G is fine for now. YMMV depending on distance between the

router and hands capable of adding RAM :-)
> Is PF capable of making good use of multiple processors with GENERIC.MP,

quoted text
> or am I better off with a single faster CPU?

Single faster CPU / GENERIC.
> Is it relevant that the Xeon has 2x4MB cache and the Opteron has 2x1MB?
Possibly, I only have single-core Opterons here so couldn't compare.