PC as a router

LDogg

Member
Sep 11, 2001
25
0
0
When you use a PC as a routehr, with 2 nics, do you lose anykind of performance? I am concerned about latency and bandwidth. This is in comparison to my LinkSYS HW routers. FYI the computer is a PIII450MHZ w/ 256RAM running 2k.

Thanks
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
The little hardware "routers" (like the LinkSys, Netgear, SMC, etc), will beat the pants off a PC based router pretty much every time. The home consumer routers are actually more like a firewall than a router, and the chips are optimized for the function.

The PC with any software is gonna have more latency, (has to do more processing) than the dedicated boxes.

We tested some of the Mini-routers in the Lab, and the results were (to our surprise) pretty impressive. The switch portion of the router was faster than a full-blown commercial switch (owing to the limited port count and fixed configuration).

If you're waffling at all, IMHO, you're way better off going with the mini-router (and it's quieter, uses less power, doesn't need a monitor.....etc)


FWIW

Scott
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com


<< The little hardware "routers" (like the LinkSys, Netgear, SMC, etc), will beat the pants off a PC based router pretty much every time. The home consumer routers are actually more like a firewall than a router, and the chips are optimized for the function.

The PC with any software is gonna have more latency, (has to do more processing) than the dedicated boxes.
>>



i have to disagree, i think any 486/pentium based *nix router can handle all the bandwidth/traffic of small LAN's that are typical with dsl/cable modems without added latency/decrease in bandwidth
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
I didn't say a PC couldn't; I believe that the hardware-based min-routers will outperform the PC-based solution.

My basis is the timing and buffering that must occur in a PC for standards compliance, coupled with a general-purpose operating system (even one that's "tuned up") versus a built-to-purpose device that is optimized for the function, doesn't have the standards compliance issues, and runs only on OP code (which was written to accommodate a specific purpose).

With regards to the 486: the architecture of the motherboards, pci bus (or EISA bus, or MCA bus......), the RAM/memory management system....would slow the system down even further.

The Mini-routers are switching at ~7.5 milliseconds...the routing/firewall process is a little slower, but not much.

It's pretty unlikely that a PC-Based system could read in a frame to NIC1, push it up the stack, make a routing/forwarding/firewall decision, change the frame as necessary for NAT, then push it down the stack and clock it out of NIC2 in the same time or less...especially a 486...and probably not a PIII...there's too much software in the way.

The PC could probably handle higher capacity, but it's slower....

It's gotta be....just look at the hardware and software processes involved.


FWIW

Scott

(besides, the person was asking for an opinion, I gave 'em one)

 

LDogg

Member
Sep 11, 2001
25
0
0
I appreciate the opinions all! thanks. Anyone have any personal testimonies? I Disabled my routers (2) to try the pc based way. sofar seems to all be well, most trouble has been cableone's fault cuz they are suckin. I am playing in a CS game currently with 18-22 ping. (pcrouter) Any experiences?
 

MulLa

Golden Member
Jun 20, 2000
1,755
0
0
Definately try to setup a PC as a router it's fun to learn how to do that.
 

Ace69

Senior member
Nov 26, 1999
877
0
0
I have set up a Clark Connect Red Hat based distro before for my router and I am now using Red Hat 7.2 for my routing needs. I doubt that you will be able to tell that much of a difference in the way each routes packets. With the PC, you will much more configurablity with the firewall, NAT, etc than you would with a regular SOHO router. If you want some that is easy and will do the job, go with a Linksys, Broadguard SOHO router and it will work fine, but if you are into tweaking and testing different things out, go with a PC. You learn alot more using a PC and I think it is more fun, but afterall, I am pretty much a nerd. ;)
 

Wik

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2000
2,284
0
0


<< will beat the pants off a PC based router pretty much every time >>



Actually my old 486 with Freesco was faster then my Netgear RT311 was. For instance, when updating game servers in game spy, my Freesco 486 does it in half the time the Netgear would.




 

Iron Woode

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 10, 1999
31,265
12,782
136
ScottMac is technically correct, but the difference is miniscule.

Take freesco for example. Using a linux kernel makes it extremely fast. I doubt you can see any real world difference. If you are comparing ICS then yes. ICS is a very poor router.

The home consumer routers are actually more like a firewall than a router, and the chips are optimized for the function.

Freesco is a firewall/router/webserver/printserver/etc... I have used this software on a 166mghz PC and a 500mghz PC and there is no difference in performance. Its fast either way.

It all comes down to personal choice. If you have an old PC (preferably pentium based) laying around why not try freesco. If a hardware router is what you want then that is fine too.

PS. And a good PS should make the PC quiet as well.
 

HJB417

Senior member
Dec 31, 2000
763
0
0
On the windows side, There's Win2k Server/advanced server + ISA 2000
makes 1 mean router, plus the firewall client software allows almost any app to run on the net.
 

Thor86

Diamond Member
May 3, 2001
7,888
7
81
Performance, as is bandwidth? Depends usually on the routing software. Win2k is about as fast as most stand-alone gateway routers for home/office use.
 

HJB417

Senior member
Dec 31, 2000
763
0
0


<< Performance, as is bandwidth? Depends usually on the routing software. Win2k is about as fast as most stand-alone gateway routers for home/office use. >>


I'm sure linux is just as good too but I'm more comfortable in a windows environment =)
 

LucJoe

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2001
1,295
1
0
Ok, I think I want to try to set up this freesco thing. I'm going to have a network to set up of three computers, all of which running Windows XP. Also, I'll have one extra Pentium 120 old piece of crap computer sitting around that I can use as the router. Couple questions:

1. Is Freesco only designed for Linux?

2. What distro of Linux should I use it on? I have a copy of the newest Mandrake around here somewhere. Will that be OK? Or should I try to get another one?
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
FreeSCO *IS* an operating system, "Unix-Like" as is Linux.

You would load it instead of Mandrake, RedHat, Debian, etc.

Mandrake (and other *nix systems) have pretty much the same capability, but I believe the FreeSCO has been trimmed & tuned for speed and security...maybe a specific system is already packaged just to be installed as a router.....I'm not sure.

FreeBSD is also an excellent choice for a secure, fast, *nix-like, OS. They are alleged to have the best record for release code security.

FWIW

Scott
 

Poontos

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2000
2,799
0
0
I agree with FreeBSDee! :) Seriously, an awesome operating system. With all the ports available and even the OS itself, its unbelievable that it's free!
 

jungle

Senior member
May 26, 2000
674
0
0
using a pc is much coolier! it also gives you a justifacation for keeping and putting to use some of that older hardware. and it can serve other purposes to, like print spooling or something else you deem as usefull.....multifunctionality!
 

LucJoe

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2001
1,295
1
0
Ok, I'm kinda interested in this FreeBSD thing. I'm going to have an extra old P120 computer sitting around and nothing to do with it, so I'm going to try to put it to use as a router for my home network of three other computers.
At first I thought it would be best to just use FreeSCO, just for ease of use and the fact that I wouldn't even have to install it, just put in the disk and go. But now FreeBSD is looking much more attractive, however I have no idea how it work, or what I need to do to get it going. What would you guys suggest I do to learn the basics of FreeBSD, is there a website that has good information for newbies? Or possibly a website that has good information on how to set it up as a basic home networking router type deal?

Thanks
 

Poontos

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2000
2,799
0
0
Knowing just the basics with FreeBSD is tough, cause you might be able to squeeze by with them, but that's it.

Your best bet is to start @ FreeBSD.org, get familar with the site, specfically the Handbook. This will teach you all about FreeBSD. Next up are two very handy sites to have for further configuration: Linkee & Linkee
 

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
I use WinME with NAT32 for my router. I like having a pc for the flexibility, you can change/update firewall software at will, and you can use it for other funtions such as a time server, etc... It was also really cheap since I already had the pc. It is hooked to a cable modem via a 10mb nic and also has both a 10/100 nic and a HPNA nic for the local lans.

It (NAT32 not WInME) does stop working about 1 once every couple of months and has to stopped and restarted. It never locked up under W95, but the HPNA card wouldnt work under W95.

When doing file transfers and ghost backups, it does not appear to impose a performance penalty, but the 12mbs or so the HPNA can can do might not be enough to load it.
 

rrmccabe

Junior Member
Jan 29, 2000
11
0
0
Interesting topic. I think you guys are splitting hairs. I have ran most configurations discussed here, Linux, Server-routing and remote access, cisco and plain old ICS.

I agree with the fact that the performance is very close on all of them. Slight latency change IF anything. Once not, if you are going to try to route using a 486 (which works fine) and you are using a gateway product with a cache option, dont do it. The gatway caching will take a huge toll on performance. That is something to use with more processor.

Rich