486 router?

[u2slow]

Some of the router distros claim they can be run on a 386/486 class machine, but how realistic is that?

I have a 486DX2/80 with 32MB ram, adaptec 2840, 2gig scsi drive. Can such a machine handle a DHCP server, minimal firewall, some static routing?

How much throughput kB/s can I expect? (dual wan, 3 isa nics)

I have a P150, P266 I can step up to if I have to, but it would be nice to put some off this older hardware to use if its feasible.

EDIT: Mods, pls move as required... I can't seem to find the delete function.

 

[drizzt81]

well, since I don't know much about ISA, I looked at the WIKI and apparently a 16-bit ISA card will run the interface at 8MHz. 16 bit *8 MHz/ (8bit/ Byte) = 16 x 10^6 Bytes/second

So you maximum interface speed would be ~15.25 MB/second, which is sufficient for 100Mbit ethernet. However if ISA is a shared bus, your available BW may be quite a bit lower, especially with two networks cards...

 

[Josh_B]

It is totally fine for Linux routing distros.

 

[Orinthical]

ISA throughput is horrible when compared to PCI, however that setup will work just fine if all you want to do is play around with the linux/BSD firewall distros out there.

If it's something for home use or production use, I'd suggest you either try and get a beefier box (it doesn't have to be a performance machine... but I would recommend something like a PIII-600 or there abouts with 256-512MB of ram, especially if you want to enable Squid or run IDS.)

If you don't want to play around with linux/BSD distros and are just looking for a firewall box, I think you'd be better served (compared to the 486 and early pentium boxes you listed) by a DGL-4100, 4300 or any of the SOHO performance routers from this list: http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029889656&postcount=4

 

[Enigma]

I would put the p233 up for the win on this one that should be more than enough to handle some basic routing functions. Linux ftw

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I agree with Orni..yeah it will work on an old box...but won't be a ball of fire.

For a slower broadband connection, with one or two users behind it..will be tolerable.

I've seen the difference myself in moving from a midrage P3 833 with 256 megs box to a P4 512 meg box..with IPCop. There's a difference that can be felt right there...I'm sure the difference is much larger if going pre-Pentium....

 

[Malk-a-mite]

I've seen the difference myself in moving from a midrage P3 833 with 256 megs box to a P4 512 meg box..with IPCop. There's a difference that can be felt right there...I'm sure the difference is much larger if going pre-Pentium....

Depends on the distro, depends on how many add-ons (still running the p2-400 with 256 here)

 

[reyalp]

I've seen the difference myself in moving from a midrage P3 833 with 256 megs box to a P4 512 meg box..with IPCop. There's a difference that can be felt right there...I'm sure the difference is much larger if going pre-Pentium....

Did you "feel" the difference or did you actually measure it ? If you just felt it, it is very likely you are experiencing the placebo effect.

Assuming you are routing a home broadband connection (<10mbit each way), and there isn't something completely broken, it is extremely unlikely there is any noticeable difference.

I've measured the latency introduced by far weaker routers than either of the systems you mention (starting with a Pentium 100), and it is negligible. I'm not sure how an ISA 486 would fare, but I would suggest that if you look around you can find something that is PCI based for nearly free. Even if it doesn't have a performance advantage, the convenience is worthwhile.

 

[Orinthical]

Assuming you are routing a home broadband connection (<10mbit each way), and there isn't something completely broken, it is extremely unlikely there is any noticeable difference.

I disagree but since I don't have any numbers for you, we'll have to agree to disagree. Never the less, the jist of what I was saying is that a 486 can handle it. The question then becomes, "how well can it handle it."

Basic NAT does not require much overhead at all. Put Coyote on it and it'll work like a champ... for basic web surfing. If you want to do SPI, IDS, Squid or put BT through it, you're going to choke that thing down so much that you'll be wishing you had dialup. If you want to run any of the more intermediate worth-while services, you're going to need a decent processor and a good chunk of memory.

So if he's looking for something to lock in a closet and forget and fine with running NAT only... it'll work out for him. If he wants any of the better features, he'd be better of getting a SOHO router with SPI or a beefier machine.

 

[reyalp]

Yes, I as assuming a basic NAT router. That said, my current PII Celeron based system has no trouble handling heavy internal LAN traffic and CPU load, without any noticeable impact on performance of the DSL side. NATing and forwarding a few mbits of traffic just doesn't take much power.

It's worth remembering that most home routers you buy have 32-64 megs of RAM and a processor that runs at a few hundred mhz at best. They typically have no trouble handling a home broadband connection without any noticeable performance penalty. Some of them do fall down under heavy p2p load, but I suspect this is more down to bad firmware rather than hardware limits.

 

[0ldman]

I'm going to agree with the comment about varies by distrobution. Most linux distros I've used peg CPU usage while updating.

I'd hate to have to build an app on a 486, but my curiousity may make me dig out an old 486...

 

[swatbat]

For basic routing as others have said your fine. Thing is if you just want basic routing get a 40 dollar router and compusa and be done with it. That is unless you need dual wans(explain why your are going to be running dual wans). I'll tell you once you start adding the extra stuff in that makes a linux or bsd router worth it you need to really bump up the hardware. I overloaded a eden 800 mhz router box I was building by setting up a real nice blacklist on it. Couldn't handle the load. Going to replace it with a celeron or something(2+ ghz).

 

[brom42]

I've found that the amout of RAM in the system is much more important than the CPU speed. I am running a IPCop setup with CopFilter installed. Right now it is using 350MB of its 512MB of RAM. It ran like crap when it only had 256MB because it always had to use the swap file on the hard drive. Having enough ram also dropped the CPU usage way down. Now since the OP wants just basic routing, he won't need as much. I think the OP can run everything fine on the P266 because he will be able to load it with enough ram to allow the firewall to load and run everything from the RAM instead of the hard drive.

I also agree with the others. Unless you are going to be doing a lot of P2P, just go to the store and buy a cheap router. I'll perform just fine.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

If you just felt it, it is very likely you are experiencing the placebo effect.

No..this isn't my first day on the job..been doing networks for a living for a long time. Don't need a stopwatch to even count how much longer the web admin takes to populate.

It's all up to the broadband connection, and the users prior experience. Yes also what add-ons you have...but I was running IPCop bare naked for a while also..not just trying to compare IPCop with Copfilter.

And also compared to what you are comparing it against. Was your prior router some 19 dollar super entry level router with a 33MHz CPU with 2 megs of RAM? On a slower 3 meg connection? So you really don't notice? I'm comparing it against my RV0 router, or running ISA on a dual P3 1.2 platform...on Comcast powerboost which bursts up to 70 megs at times.

 

[u2slow]

So much more activity since the thread got moved to the proper area. Thanks Mods!

My wan connections are ~250kB/s and ~450kB/s best-case sustained D/L. I would be paying more for an 'enhanced' package with either provider than I do with a basic one from each. I'm finding it beneficial to learn the nuances of each provider when it comes to their bundled software and port handling especially.

I've used mostly low-end D-link routers to date (DI-604/707P). Not sure how fast their internals are. I'm hungering to dabble with more features without buying more of these router 'bricks'.

Sounds like I would have to migrate the router to a more powerful PC as I slapped on the features anyways. I think that's reason enough to start with something better.

I'll save the 486 for a kick-butt Windows 3.1 box or something.

 

[bob]

It's worth remembering that most home routers you buy have 32-64 megs of RAM and a processor that runs at a few hundred mhz at best.

We should all know by now, that Mhz is worthless as a way to gauge performance. My belkin router has 2MB ram, I cant remember the CPU. It handles the 4mb comcast internet im on fine.

My handheld computer uses a 203Mhz ARM cpu, but its barely comparable to my 100mhz P1 laptop.

 

[reyalp]

No..this isn't my first day on the job..been doing networks for a living for a long time. Don't need a stopwatch to even count how much longer the web admin takes to populate.

I assumed you are talking about the performance impact on the connection, not how long the admin page takes to load.

What I measured was the latency introduced by the router. My conclusion was that even with high CPU loads on the router, and a large volume of internal traffic, the DSL latency and throughput were essentially unaffected. Again, this is just with basic nat/iptables/traffic shaping and a few other odds and ends. If you want to do something CPU intensive with the traffic as it passes through, you obviously want enough CPU for that

We should all know by now, that Mhz is worthless as a way to gauge performance.

My point was that the home broadband routers don't have anything remotely close to say, an 800mhz P3, so getting equivalent performance and functionality shouldn't require one. The infamous wrt54g for example have a 100-200mhz mips CPU and 8-32 megs of RAM.