hasn't that been talked about a dozen times lately...
* Richard Wilson  [2007-11-14 11:33]:

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?

i386 used too be much better. it is time this gets tested again.
> 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. Given RAM is so cheap, and I'd like

> some future-proofing, is there any use in getting 2G instead?

why not... more than 2G probably hurts more than it helps, but 2g

should be fine. so should one.
> Is PF capable of making good use of multiple processors with GENERIC.MP,
no
> or am I better off with a single faster CPU?
yes
> I'm currently looking at a Dell PE860 (1U, Quad core Xeon@2.4GHz, 1G

quoted text
> RAM) or a Dell PE SC1435 (1U, Dual core Opteron@2.4GHz, 1G RAM). They're

> near enough the same price, so its just a question of what will be best

> suited to running PF. My ignorant thought would be that 4 cores is

> better than 2, but if PF only uses one core perhaps if the Opteron has

> better interrupt handling then AMD would be the better choice. Is it

> relevant that the Xeon has 2x4MB cache and the Opteron has 2x1MB?

more cache could help quite a bit.

on the other hand, opteron has way faster memory access, that helps

too...
--

Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam