[HN Gopher] Making a Linux-managed network switch
___________________________________________________________________
Making a Linux-managed network switch
Author : _Microft
Score : 239 points
Date : 2024-07-03 14:47 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.brixit.nl)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.brixit.nl)
| teddyh wrote:
| Does it support rSTP?
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| I don't think this support it, only regular STP and apparently
| MSTP
| teddyh wrote:
| > _and apparently MSTP_
|
| Where did you find that?
| gerdesj wrote:
| STP is "slow" STP, and RSTP is a degenerate case of MSTP!
|
| MSTP is Multiple spanning trees ie you can group VLANs and
| prefer paths for those groups of VLANs. That means if you
| have say two links between two bridges (switches) you can
| prefer some to use one link and the rest to use the other,
| that means you are not "wasting" a standby link. They will
| fail over to the surviving link on failure. STP and RSTP
| will only consider one link as a whole, so two ports are
| "wasted" when not in use: in the case of a two bridge, two
| links example.
|
| Old school STP without the Rapid part hasn't really been a
| thing for several decades. I can't think of why you
| wouldn't use RSTP in general but if you need to make best
| use of your forwarding capacity then a 50/50 MSTP may be
| indicated. That's where you look at your traffic flows
| across VLANs and try to bundle them up into a 50/50%
| collection. One lot prefers link A and the rest get link B.
| Obviously you can get really creative as the number of
| VLANs and links mount up. Bear in mind that dot1Q is a
| simple version of QinQ!
|
| Sorry, got a bit carried away there.
|
| For nearly all intents and purposes, RSTP _is_ STP. If you
| plug in a network cable between two devices and it does not
| start working within say five seconds then you are living
| in the 1990s.
| mito88 wrote:
| > If you plug in a network cable between two devices and
| it does not start working within say five seconds then
| you are living in the 1990s.
|
| a living in a hub...
|
| :)
| teddyh wrote:
| I meant, where did you find that this specific Linux-
| managed network switch supports MSTP? Because the Linux
| bridge networking code, last time I looked, only
| supported STP; you had to run a separate daemon to even
| get RSTP.
| thelastparadise wrote:
| What's the advantage of doing this over plugging multiple gigabit
| adapters into a linux machine and adding them all to a bridge?
|
| I'm guessing performance might be better with the hardware, but I
| don't know --has anyone done tests to show the difference?
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| This is more efficient if most of the traffic will get
| switched, seperate adapters is more efficient if most of it
| needs to be routed.
| simcop2387 wrote:
| It'll be a combination of:
|
| 1. Throughput - say you use usb adapters, in a lot of ways usb
| is a shared bus so you'll run into max bandwidth quickly. This
| is especially because data will have to go in and then out, all
| the way to the cpu
|
| 2. Latency - because you're using software to do switching,
| it'll add time to process each packet and send it back out tne
| right place. You've also go any other interface latency adding
| to it
|
| 3. Power usage - eacj adapter will have it's own full network
| phy and hardware, which will increase the power draw. Combined
| with all the extra processing above and now your power usage is
| even higher. This means you also loae out on hardware
| offloading and other performance enhancememts that generally
| reduce power usage because less of the system is involved in
| mocing packets around
|
| 4. Features (potentially) - this will depend a lot on the
| hardware you choose, some of those cheap gigabit usb adapters
| i've tried didn't work with vlans and other features properly.
| But if you say load up a bunch of nice pcie cards with 1 or
| more ports thst support everything (never had issues with pcie
| ones) then you can now actually get a lot of features that are
| otherwise difficult or impossible on simpler hardware (though
| at that point you're doing routing more tham switching, but
| thay flexibility is why you'd potentially do this).
| Fnoord wrote:
| We're only talking 1 gbit ethernet here, so you can have
| multiple of those ports on PCIe.
|
| I have a PCIe card here with two 2.5 gbit on it (don't
| remember exactly how much it was on Ali but between 20 and 40
| EUR) and I can saturate both with iperf3. Since the example
| only uses 4 ports, it should be easy to make a simple router
| with just two PCIe cards. But there's probably 4x 1 gbit PCIe
| out there, too. And if you use 1 gbit fiber, that wouldn't
| cost much power nor would it need much speed. If your uplink
| is DSL, you could use a VigorNIC 132.
| adrian_b wrote:
| For such a low speed and small number of ports using a hardware
| switch circuit is not necessary.
|
| Nevertheless, if the designing and building effort is
| neglected, I assume that the total cost of the hardware might
| be under $100, which is less than a computer with multiple
| interfaces would cost.
|
| Still, 1 Gb/s networks are rather obsolete. One could make a
| managed network switch that is bigger and faster by using only
| off-the-shelf components for slightly more than $200, e.g. a
| 6-port 2.5 Gb/s switch can be made with an Odroid H4+ having 2
| ports, together with its add-on M.2 card with 4 extra Ethernet
| ports. Another variant is to use a small computer with an N100
| CPU and 4 2.5 Gb/s ports, which can be bought in this price
| range from various Chinese companies. Similar small computers
| with 6 2.5 Gb/s ports are a little more expensive, perhaps
| slightly over $300.
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| $100? I paid roughly $80 for two of these and the price per
| boards will rapidly converge to ~$17 when increasing
| quantity.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The PINE A64-LTS alone is $40 + shipping + taxes, so you
| cannot have a $17 total cost.
|
| I assume that you mean that the card with the switch
| circuit alone could reach $17, if made in a large quantity.
|
| However, you cannot make a managed switch with that card
| alone.
|
| If your current cost has been $40 for a card with the
| switch circuit, adding the PINE A64-LTS + whatever you have
| paid for shipping and taxes must make the total around
| $100, exactly like I have said.
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| I meant the cost of just the switch obviously... It can
| hook up to whatever Linux machine you have running and I
| happened to have this one in the drawer.
|
| The point of this was not to make the fastest or cheapest
| or most featureful switch available, it just had to fit
| in a case and none of the options have one port facing
| backwards so it doesn't require an ugly loop cable on the
| front of the final case.
|
| It's also possible to make a managed switch with that
| card alone, there is a footprint for a NOR flash chip, if
| you load the netgear GS105E firmware on that (which is
| available on the netgear website) then it will be just a
| GS105E without leds and one port on the back.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Still, 1 Gb/s networks are rather obsolete.
|
| Are they? Most consumer, even office gear still is maximum
| 1000M/port - your average USB-C network/multi-port laptop
| dongle, most USB-C/TB monitors (and shamefully, Apple's
| Studio Display which only has USB-C/TB ports, no network),
| VoIP phones (hell these are usually 10/100 only, with 1000
| being reserved for top models), printers, virtually all entry
| to mid range NAS systems... the list is endless.
|
| Options for more than that tend to be really niche,
| expensive, or are bring-your-own-module-SFP.
|
| Besides, 1000M is way more than enough for almost all
| consumer and office needs. Only exception is heavy video and
| photo editing, if these workplaces don't already use direct
| Thunderbolt/FC attach.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| They definitely aren't, no idea what parent is talking
| about. They are the standard unless you're talking about a
| SAN or something. If I had to guess, 92% of the switches in
| a typical office are 1000M, 5% are 100M, and the rest are >
| 1000M for switch interconnects or HA server
| interconnects/SANs.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| No they aren't.
|
| You failed to mention the big one: _most_ people by very
| far have 1 Gb /s network switches to... Connect their
| machines to this thing called the Internet. Some may have
| heard of it.
|
| And most people also have not more than 1 Gbit/s up/down.
|
| Do I have switches (with a 's') with 10 Gbit/s SFP+ at
| home? Yup. Is 1 Gbit/s obsolete: definitely not.
| p_l wrote:
| 1gig is starting to become a problem - we have increasing
| deployment of 2gig and 8gig internet to homes in Poland
| for example, figuring out how to deal with that when most
| computer gear still comes with 1gig is becoming an issue
| Asmod4n wrote:
| A raspberry pi 400 can handle around 875 MBit when bridging
| two interfaces. So it's not even fast enough for two ports
| let alone full duplex. I doubt a n100 can handle more than
| three.
| sofixa wrote:
| An Intel Celeron N5105, on one core, does ~28Gbps locally
| between two bridged interfaces with iperf.
|
| A Raspberry Pi 4 has a single PCIe lane with a total of
| 4Gbps bandwith for everything (all USB ports and Ethernet).
|
| Edit: shameless plug, but I _just_ finished writing an
| article on my new home network, including the router with
| the above spec /results:
| https://atodorov.me/2024/07/03/running-a-multi-gig-home-
| netw...
| Asmod4n wrote:
| The CPU is the bottleneck. All switching is done in
| software with off the shelf NICs.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yes, my Intel Celeron N5105 had a full core pegged at
| 100% while doing that iperf and getting those numbers.
|
| But there are 4 whole cores, meaning I can get far more
| traffic switched and routed with the CPU capacity than
| all the ports combined can sustain.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| 1000M networks are THE standard, no idea where you got the
| idea they were obsolete.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Unfortunately gigabit ethernet is far from obsolete.
|
| Yes, there's 2.5 gigabit on some consumer hardware, but it's
| still kind of rare.
|
| Also who is excited about a 2.5x speedup after 20 years?
| Nobody cares until we need 10 gigabit internet access (which
| will probably never happen).
| sofixa wrote:
| > Nobody cares until we need 10 gigabit internet access
| (which will probably never happen).
|
| For what it's worth, my ISP gives me 5Gbps down/700Mbps up
| for ~40 euros a month which includes a bunch of TV channels
| and discounts for Netflix and Disney+.
|
| They also have an 8Gbps down / 8Gbps up plan for ~60 euros,
| also including a ton of extra things.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Wow, that's pretty cool. Where is this offered?
|
| But have you invested in 5Gbps+ networking gear to
| actually take advantage of the offer? 10 Gbps Nics have
| become super affordable (~20$) by the way.
| p_l wrote:
| Cat7 cabling is something I encountered at discount
| stores now
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| I wouldn't trust a Cat7 cable from a discount store to
| adhere to the spec though.
| p_l wrote:
| Used it more as illustration of market penetration - just
| like with HDMI cables, you're either ripped off on
| markup, sold under-spec cabling, or both.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I wouldn't use copper for 10G anyway, use a fibre sfp,
| far more power efficient.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Doesn't that depend on the run length? Surely copper is
| more efficient for just a few meters.
| sofixa wrote:
| It depends.
|
| In my case, all rooms are cabled with a weird electrical
| standard that should get me 10G Ethernet (and does 2.5G
| without any issue). I'm not going to drill holes to pull
| my own fibre all around the place when I have perfectly
| good Ethernet connectivity.
|
| Also, while 10G SFP+ NICs are vastly more available than
| Ethernet 10G ones, switches seem to be cheaper with
| 2.5/5/10G Ethernet ports than full on SFP+, unless you
| buy recycled Enterprise gear which would blow your power
| efficiency argument out of the water.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Wow, that's pretty cool. Where is this offered?
|
| Free in France.
|
| > But have you invested in 5Gbps+ networking gear to
| actually take advantage of the offer? 10 Gbps Nics have
| become super affordable (~20$) by the way.
|
| The 8/8 plan comes with a router that has WiFi 7
| (theoretical max 46Gbps, but who knows in reality, it's
| not really out yet), an SFP+ port, and 4x2.5Gbps Ethernet
| ports. The one I have only has one 2.5Gbps Ethernet, so
| that's the Internet speed at which my home network caps
| out at.
|
| If you're interested in more details, I recently finished
| writing an article about my home network:
| https://atodorov.me/2024/07/03/running-a-multi-gig-home-
| netw...
|
| And yeah, 10G equipment (in terms of NICs and cables) is
| quite affordable, but switches still aren't really
| _super_ affordable.
| ta1243 wrote:
| The main reason for 2.5g is for digital video (2.5gbit will
| allow do 2 1080i 2110 streams), and especially the
| increasing numbers of wifi6e APs that do >1gbit but nowhere
| near 10g
| toast0 wrote:
| As everyone else is saying, power usage should be less this
| way. Probably less latency to traverse the switch than a
| software bridge, too. Switching should continue to function if
| the host OS crashes, combined with a watchdog and recovery, you
| could have a more available system where maybe some things
| don't work for a brief interval, but much better than a
| software bridge (assuming the switch chip doesn't crash or get
| stuck, anyway).
|
| It depends on what your goals are though. If you want to
| inspect all traffic passing through the switch, having 4
| interfaces is clearly better. If your host based switch is also
| doing a lot of communication, 4 interfaces gives you 4gbps from
| the hkst rather than 1gbps. Etc.
|
| Ex-enterprise quad 1G cards are $15 or less on ebay. I'm
| partial to silicom quad bypass 1g_ PEG4BPI-SD; the bypass
| feature can be fun, and they're cheaper cause they're weird
| (you can mostly configure them to be 'standard nics' once and
| then plug them into anything without much fuss, but getting
| there can be challenging. Early ones come with pci ids set to
| silicom as the vendor _and_ subvendor which makes them harder
| to use; the -SD cards have intel vendor id and silicom
| subvendor, so the normal driver will attach.
|
| 4x10g ports would be more to manage, and you might not have
| enough throughput for software bridging, depending on the host
| system. And quad port 10g cards are harder to find. 2x10G is
| reasonably priced though, if you're patient.
| denkmoon wrote:
| Your CPU will be in the data path there. Switches do their
| packet switching on ASIC rather than CPU. So it depends how
| good your CPU is, and generally that's not an effective use of
| whatever compute power you've got.
| buccal wrote:
| Interesting project.
|
| For simpler use you can get an OpenWRT capable router which in
| most cases uses a managed switch chip. OpenWRT provides a nice
| interface to configure VLANs and other options.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| OpenWRT these days can also be installed on some switches eg
| the Zyxel GS1900 series (though support for things like PoE and
| 10Gb/SFP+ ports might be limited, I'm not sure where things
| stand there).
| stragies wrote:
| Looking at the OpenWrt forum, work is coming along nicely
| w.r.t supporting FasterThan1G on RTL9X. Many/Most
| configurations seem to be working.
|
| RTL8X is AFAIC done, feature-complete.
| https://svanheule.net/switches/
|
| POE on those devices is mostly two types: Broadcom (well
| supported), and Realteks inhouse solution, which uses a
| 'dialect' of the Broadcom protocol. There is a git branch/PR,
| where the 'dialect' differences have been moved to individual
| modules. But it's not released yet.
| https://github.com/Hurricos/realtek-poe/pull/35
|
| Unfortunately, there seem to be hard problems migrating up
| from Linux 5.15 to 6.1 or 6.6.
| znpy wrote:
| WTF, i had no idea that was possible. I have that exact
| switch (GS1900-24E)... I need to look into that
| stragies wrote:
| Install mosquitto afterwards, add a small script, and the
| ports all show up in HomeAssistant as power-monitoring
| ON/OFF switches. :)
| znpy wrote:
| Jesus christ that's awesome!
| stragies wrote:
| Nice article, Thank you for the write-up.
|
| First time I saw somebody 'creatively using' an RTL83something
| switch was https://spritesmods.com/?art=rtl8366sb, and there were
| others since then, but yours was the first 'build my own managed
| switch', instead of 'adding an external brain to an unmanaged
| switch'
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| Ah yes the legendary sprite_tm, I've come across this while
| writing my own raspberry pi firmware to manage the switch over
| USB.
| gerdesj wrote:
| "Network switches are simple devices, packets go in, packets go
| out. Luckily people have figured out how to make it complicated
| instead and invented managed switches."
|
| Expensive switches involve some pretty fancy ASICs. For example I
| have a pair of fairly elderly Dell OS9 switches with 48 x 10Gb/s
| ports and four x 40Gb/s QSFP+ fibre ports. These are "old skool"
| stacked jobbies. Each switch can shuffle up to 1.28Tb/s (1).
| That's quite a lot. You can get those for PS1800 including VAT
| (2) these days and they will last nearly forever.
|
| I love to see efforts like this but do bear in mind that say
| Netgear will do a eight port 1Gb switch with Power over Ethernet
| on all ports for about PS125.
|
| If you cost your time at somewhere between PS20-50 per hour when
| evaluating whether a project is financially viable, then an off
| the shelf box might be indicated. However, if the actual purpose
| is the project itself then sod the price!
|
| (1) https://i.dell.com/sites/doccontent/shared-content/data-
| shee... (2) https://www.etb-tech.com/dell-force10-s4820t-10gbe-
| switch-os...
| bithead wrote:
| Ignorance is bliss.
| immibis wrote:
| I worked with one of these ASICs, from Broadcom. Not 40, but
| something like 4x10+24x1Gbps + PCIe to CPU. The ASIC cost as
| much as you would expect (I don't know the actual number - a
| couple hundred bucks?). The software interface to it was very
| poorly documented, and was a library that supported all
| Broadcom switch ASICs, so was a few hundred megabytes .a file
| and was full of functions that would just return "not supported
| on this device" errors, which you wouldn't know until you tried
| it.
| zokier wrote:
| Not Broadcom, but Microchip has list prices straight on their
| website (how refreshing!), and yeah few hundred bucks sounds
| about right; for example this random 128Gbps switch chip is
| about $120 in single quantities, $80 in volume
|
| https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/vsc7552#purchase-
| fro...
|
| It feels bit bonkers that a actual switch based on that
| probably costs thousands.
|
| The software side is crap as usual. They sell their Linux-
| based package at $75000, with maintenance (basically updates)
| at $17500.
|
| So even though the chip is cheap, you need to burn six
| figures to do anything with them :(
| kijiki wrote:
| Their Sparx-5 line is supported by stock upstream Linux
| switchdev.
| stragies wrote:
| Intrigued by that, I went looking. First commit of
| support was 2019, for Linux5.2. Yet, 5 years later, there
| is not one example (that i could find) of OpenWrt running
| on these Chips. If the platform/FW/BSP package were any
| good, I'd expect there to be chat about it in the forums,
| and/or attempts to port to such devices from SMBStaX (The
| Microchip BSP Linux dist).
| inhumantsar wrote:
| I suspect it's not worth the effort for most people.
| People who want to DIY a switch are likely content to
| brute force it with a decent cpu, multiport network
| cards, and lots of PCIe lanes. While others will be happy
| with a used enterprise OEM unit.
|
| Does make me wonder what asics Microtik is using under
| the hood though...
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| A lot of them are just networking SoCs with built in
| switching fabrics or the lower end ones have the low end
| router SoC from various manufacturers.
|
| Mikrotik is one of the few brands that actually list this
| in the spec sheets.
| zokier wrote:
| You are right, the situation is better that what I
| thought, the commercial smbstax SDK might not be
| absolutely required.
|
| They even have some BSP stuff freely available which is
| really positive sign. https://github.com/microchip-
| ung/bsp-doc
|
| This would be such an enticing project to jump into,
| there are just enough bits to make it seem doable, even
| if the realist in me knows its not really feasible.
| teleforce wrote:
| That's a very cheap price for enterprise layer 3 switching
| chip. Thanks for the info, how this switch chip has escaped
| me is very perplexing.
|
| Can you elaborate on their Linux-based package, is the
| package critical for the development and using the chip
| with embedded Linux. Can we just use it as switching fabric
| and use Intel CPU for example N100 as the main controller
| running Linux?
|
| The sibling comment also mentioned that Sparx-5 line is
| supported by stock upstream Linux switchdev, and this the
| same chip as in your link.
| wesapien wrote:
| What ever happened to Openflow? Wouldn't this be a perfect device
| for it? Setting up a lab for it was almost impossible thats why I
| lost interest.
| wmf wrote:
| OpenFlow was kind of the wrong solution to the problem. (The
| right solution is switchdev or SAI.)
| wesapien wrote:
| I'll look them up. Cheers.
| SSLy wrote:
| SAI being what?
| wmf wrote:
| Switch Abstraction Interface
| p_l wrote:
| OpenFlow is a protocol, switchdev is a driver API for
| exposing access to essentially the same operation model as
| OpenFlow targets. You don't replace OpenFlow with switchdev,
| you might use OpenFlow to integrate a switchdev with an SDN
| wmf wrote:
| You want to write code that runs on the switch, whether
| it's a routing protocol or an intent reconciliation loop or
| whatever. You don't want to send low-level OpenFlow
| commands over the network because it ends up being slow and
| chatty.
| p_l wrote:
| A considerable portion of SDN craze involved pretty much
| this. Even systems that didn't use OpenFlow were
| incredibly chatty, creating complex chains of NextHop
| routes from centralized or at least semi-centralized
| servers to the actual switches.
|
| Even in more sane setups, it's not actually uncommon to
| have control plane talk over network to actual forwarding
| plane - IIRC Cisco Nexus operates this way, with actual
| forwarding engines talking with control plane over
| Ethernet link.
|
| _I like the code to run on the switches directly_ , but
| SDNs very often eschewed that for dumber forwarding
| engines controlled OpenFlow way, even if actual protocols
| used weren't OpenFlow.
| immibis wrote:
| AFAIK OpenFlow tried to be far too generic, resulting in it not
| actually mapping onto any actual hardware without lots of
| abstraction leakage.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Ironically it could also be said OpenFlow was not generic
| enough. More and more networking hardware continues to move
| towards having a fully programmable pipeline but OpenFlow
| isn't the most flexible way to define a completely arbitrary
| pipeline.
|
| https://opennetworking.org/news-and-
| events/blog/clarifying-t...
| p_l wrote:
| It mapped very well to HW, but only to dumbest part of the
| hw.
|
| at least from pov of someone dabbling in SDNs around
| 2014-2017 including deep guts implementation details of one
| commercial one...
|
| OpenFlow encoded the approach of dumb ethernet switches,
| combined with Cisco Express Forwarding - which is a common
| aspect of many switching ASICs, but not entirety of them,
| even for Cisco.
|
| It never abstracted that historic aspect, if anything the
| leaking was the internal model of OpenFlow (editing
| forwarding table) rather than internals HW (which sometimes
| was a systolic array of CPUs that exposed "tables" as detail
| of interaction but nothing actually fundamental).
|
| All was fine so long, like CEF, you dumped everything to
| CPU/northbound API outside "IP with this address should go
| there, and TCP flow with those parameters go there", in case
| of early openflow bejbf essentially "packet with dstMAC shall
| go to port X".
|
| This does not work well with acceleration engines, or in
| beefier chips the aforementioned systolic arrays or similar
| arrangements, outside of hardcoding idea of specific
| accelerators and their interface tables.
| protocolture wrote:
| No offense intended, I may have misunderstood something here.
|
| You use a routerboard block diagram as your model to demonstrate
| how a hardware switch is connected to the rest of the system. But
| then you go on to claim that they are impossible/difficult to
| work with.
|
| Did you source a routerboard at any point here? Fairly sure that
| OpenWRT can be built for most routerboards, and the 2011 should
| be a fairly common device on the second hand market.
|
| Maybe this is a better question. Was the goal always to build
| from scratch? Or did you discard the concept of using someone
| elses hardware for a particular reason?
| stragies wrote:
| The RouterBoard RB2011 is stuck on an ancient release version
| of OpenWrt, 19.07, see here:
| https://openwrt.org/toh/mikrotik/rb2011
|
| The problem seems to be somewhat related to the NAND, which is
| IIRC somehow different from the supported RouterBoards.
| Somebody proposed a new solution to this problem, but that
| hasn't landed yet: https://forum.openwrt.org/t/wiki-cleanup-
| for-mikrotik-rb2011... and other threads.
| MartijnBraam wrote:
| I have a stack of them here, they are great to work with for
| their intended purpose but they are not that great if you want
| to run custom software.
|
| I also grabbed a RB2011 diagram because it's a simple diagram
| that explains it well I think, the RB1100AHx4 is a better
| example technically since it's using the same switch chip but
| it's more confusing because they use the two CPU ports together
| and claim it's a 2.5Gbps link while it's two 1.25Gbps link and
| they ignore the encoding overhead.
|
| The reason why I build this from scratch is that it that the
| expense is reasonable and this should end up in the FOSDEM
| video recording boxes and it has to fix a few issues specific
| to that design like it needing to expose 4 network ports to the
| front panel of the case but also be connected to the internal
| SBC. There's simply not that much space in the case to put
| passthroughs in the case to a switch to not have an external
| loop cable for the SBC and with a dumb switch the system can't
| be monitored anymore. Since quite a few of these boxes are
| built this becomes a reasonable solution (if you ignore design
| time, but this is volunteer work)
| shmerl wrote:
| From what I've read, it's very hard to make a 10 Gbps switch
| without relying on some blobs since those accelerator chip makers
| don't have any open drivers support.
|
| And you supposedly need those chips since switching it on the CPU
| is very taxing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-04 23:01 UTC)