Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Enterprise-Grade Linux Networking Hardware?

An anonymous reader writes "In spite of Linux's great networking capabilities, there seems to be a shortage of suitable hardware for building an enterprise-grade networking platform. I've had success on smaller projects with the Soekris offerings but they are suboptimal for large-scale deployment due to their single-board non-redundant design (eg., single power supply, lack of backup 'controller'). What is the closest thing to a modular Linux-capable platform with some level of hardware redundancy and substantial bus/backplane throughput?"

26 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Server by psergiu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try a Dell server.
    Official Linux support - check
    Redundant power supplies - check
    Remote LAN console - check
    Server-class motherboard with loads of bandwidth - check
    Rack-mountable - check

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Server by djsmiley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they want networking hardware, linux *ISN'T* the way to go.

      Juniper, Cisco, others.... (I dunno anymore but there is I'm sure).

      As you said yourself, you get what you pay for. If you buy crap, you'll get crap throughput.

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    2. Re:Server by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cisco is crazy overpriced for the throughput you get. A cheap linux server acting as a router can easily beat many cisco devices.

      Trying to compete with switches on the other hand is crazy talk.

    3. Re:Server by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they want networking hardware, linux *ISN'T* the way to go.

      Juniper, Cisco, others.... (I dunno anymore but there is I'm sure).

      As you said yourself, you get what you pay for. If you buy crap, you'll get crap throughput.

      Actually, that isn't true at all. Linux can compete toe to toe with Cisco, Juniper, Big Iron, and others. This is specifically why Vyatta has so much invested in it. Vyatta has come up with a Linux distro that is designed to replace this proprietary hardware. To boot, Vyatta has scored several major Fortune 500 players. Additionally, OpenBSD has routing facilities that are a force to be reckoned with. Several of my clients use Lenovo M71e's with OpenBSD as routers that I built. I replaced the traditional HD with an SSD and bought high-end intel networking boards. Contrary to "conventional" wisdom, these have been near perfectly reliable. They use BGP and IPSEC to interface with my Amazon VPC.

    4. Re:Server by 0racle · · Score: 2

      It's not the reliability that is the issue, you can get very reliable server machines. It is the benefits that the ASIC's bring to the various platforms from Cisco, Juniper, HP and whatnot. You can get away without them because for a great number of usage scenarios you don't need them, but when you do, the dedicated hardware will reliably out perform a general purpose OS on a general purpose machine. There is also the benefit that a Juniper router or a Cisco switch use a whole lot less power then that tower.

      Linux and OpenBSD do have a place, probably more places then they are deployed (but a lot of that will be support reasons), but you can not ignore the fact that the more traditional networking devices from traditional networking vendors also has their place. Picking a tower running Linux when you really did need what that Cisco/Juniper device can do will hurt you more than putting that Cisco/Juniper where you could have used Linux.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:Server by dvNull · · Score: 2

      There is also Mikrotik http://www.routerboard.com/

    6. Re:Server by Bengie · · Score: 2

      It would be cheaper to purchase an advanced Layer3 1Gb/10Gb switch than to make a computer into a switch, not to mention better performance under load. Many L3 switches can do IPv4/6-routing + vLAN + ACL at full media speed on all ports at the same time

      Where a computer competes for price and performance is an edge router, assuming only some 10Gb links. I don't think a computer could keep up with those high end 100Gb+ links when they're using custom hardware.

    7. Re:Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the low-end, you are right. But anywhere that you actually use the features that set a Cisco router apart (enterprise-scale redundancy, failover, etc) you will be glad you bought Cisco. Plus, with dedicated hardware, I can take a failed device, pull the config from backups, drop it on the new device and be back up and running in minutes.

      In the sub-$1000 market, there are plenty of better options than Cisco. I'm a big fan of Fortinet; their cloud management features are pretty slick, and their devices offer so much functionality that it would be difficult to duplicate with just a server. There are so many inexpensive options here that building your own simply makes no sense at all when for the same price, you could just buy a FortiGate and be done with it.

      In short, roll your own routers are fun projects, but at the end of the day it'll just be cheper to buy a commercial router. With a router, you're not buying hardware, you're buying the software. And most of that software is sufficiently complex as to not make you feel ripped off.

    8. Re:Server by pedrop357 · · Score: 2

      Their firewalls (at least the ASA) run a version of Linux too.

      For others reading:
      Some people mentioned Juniper. JUNOS is based on BSD. On the router platforms I've touched (m10 and m320), you can drop into a shell and see the filesystem layout, etc.

      uname-a at the shell on an m10i:
      JUNOS Hostname 11.1R4.4 JUNOS 11.1R4.4 #0: 2011-07-30 10:27:32 UTC builder@briath.juniper.net:/volume/build/junos/11.1/release/11.1R4.4/obj-i386/bsd/kernels/JUNIPER/kernel i386

    9. Re:Server by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      Layer 2 is switching. Layer 3 is routing.

      No matter what the marketing morons say.

    10. Re:Server by SaDan · · Score: 2

      Mikrotik can also run on PC based hardware, so if you have some task that requires a pile of power, you can find the hardware to do it.

      http://mikrotik.com/

    11. Re:Server by trevelyon · · Score: 2

      Well that all depends on where you want it and what functionality you need. I know I've deployed fleets of WRAP PCs running LEAF that have simply blown away the Cisco hardware at a fraction of the cost. Below is a summary of how I saw them stacking up.

      The LEAF on WRAP PC advantages were:
      More secure: SSH access and serial console, latest strong encryption included
      More reliable: especially if the Cisco devices were running any network server functions like DHCP, fanless, all solid state
      More complete: VPN, DHCP, DNS (tinydns and dnsmasq, I never run BIND on a firewall even though you can)
      Lower power usage: 5W and can be powered by POE
      More upgradeable: New major version released every couple of years. Free upgrades, patches, new features, etc.
      Lower cost: about 10-20% of the cost of a pix or comparable vpn enabled router (at least as of a few years ago). So much so that having a cold standby (just swap flash cards) was easily justified. Never had a unit in the field go bad yet but at $250 ea it was easy to be safe.

      Cisco advantages are:
      A more standardized CLI
      A greater pool of available talent to work on it
      Custom asics for more routing performance in very demanding applications (ISP cores, etc)

      These areas are about the same:
      Config backup
      Staging and deployment

      These WRAP PCs were all edge devices or installed in the SMB environment and in firewall/routing/VPN/Security roles. I am not aware of any switch hardware that runs Linux but the tools are there on the Linux side for bridging management. I only needed to scale up a few times for VPN concentrators and for those server hardware was the answer. Big network core routers will need some custom asics though and I'm not aware of any offerings like that which run Linux. On the edge IMO Linux destroys the competition IF you have a couple qualified linux resources. I used to be a Cisco instructor (basic network switching courses, network management, ATM/LAN switching) several years back so have a good understanding of the device capabilities but am a bit rusty in some Cisco areas.
      I'd be curious to hear why you think Linux isn't the way to go across the board? It hasn't been my experience at all.

  2. anything vyatta runs on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Supermicro by BaronAaron · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've used Supermicro equipment for years. Their 1U Atom based systems work great for firewalls, routers, or any other kind of Linux network device. Low power, mostly fanless (power supply has a fan), expansion slots, decently priced. You can go up the line to full blown Xeon based systems with all the redundancy you need.

    Their support is good also. You get to talk to knowledgeable people who speak English.

    Supermicro website

    1. Re:Supermicro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude said enterprise. Supermicro does not provide enterprise support, they have fine phone support but replacements are slow to arrive and unreliable. Hell their build quality is dodgy at best. (Stuff may not fit identically unit to unit, poorer quality fans, etc) I like them a lot, used them for a 400 server build a couple years back, the cost/value is fantastic, but they are not "enterprise" by any stretch. Just reasonably priced Chinese server gear.

  4. Re:every appliance uses linux by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

    Of course they haven't. Ask Slashdot is the place for incompetent IT monkeys to get told how to do the basic tasks of their job.

  5. ImageStream by acoustix · · Score: 2

    I have a friend who operates a small ISP in rural Iowa. I believe he's using ImageStream routers. Just a quick look at their lineup and I'm guessing that they can cover small to mid size businesses. They claim to be able to replace Cisco 3945 and 7206 routers. I'm not sure about hardware redundancy though.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  6. Try ALIX? by guises · · Score: 3, Informative

    ALIX boards can run Linux or FreeBSD (Monowall, pfSense) and support PoE, so you can set up your own redundant power system. For board redundancy, just use two routers.

    Actually, the Soekris boards seem to be similar - they both use x86 CPUs.

  7. Switches by laptop006 · · Score: 2

    Pretty most software devices I've seen have either been a rebadged Dell or Supermicro, with the top end running custom cases, and the low end doing whitebox.

    In terms of "real" networking kit though, there is a bunch of switches that run linux:

    Arista (everything)
    Extreme (everything running XOS, which is all current models)
    Cisco (everything running IOS XE, the only switch being the 4500-X)

    All Juniper devices that run JunOS are FreeBSD, this includes both the EX and QFX switch lines, as well as their SRX firewalls.

    Also most of the openflow-aimed switches run Linux, eg http://www.pica8.com/

    --
    /* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
  8. Dell Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I run a 50/50 mix of Dell and HP Proliant servers. About 30 of each brand. All of these are fairly new, within a few years of age.
    By far, the Dells do break down more often. The HPs seem to only lose hot-pluggable hard drives every now and then, but the Dells lose drives, PSUs, cooling fans, RAID controllers and even had a motherboard fail. However, the latest batch of Proliants I bought seem to not be built as good as in the past either. We'll see how well they hold up. It's all Foxconn junk nowadays. The new servers do perform very fast however, you do have to give them credit there.

  9. Don't tell anybody... by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but I use Sun Microsystems hardware for this task.

    The X2100, X4100 series servers more than meet my needs, and are available on the used market for a song these days.

    The lights-out management works great, the rackmount kits and cable management arms are first-class, the hardware is well-made, and they look cool. Heck, they're even certified to run RHEL 5 or so.

    Best of all - buying used Sun gear and putting Linux on it pisses off Larry Ellison. What more could you ask for?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  10. Re:Lol by unixisc · · Score: 2

    So anytime someone posts an Ask Slashdot question, it means that they're idiots? Nice to know. The OP would have done well to have been clearer as to whether he was talking about servers or networking gear. But aside from that, if the OP is looking at sinking a whole ton of cash, which he'd have to in order to get all the things he listed, such as redundant power supplies, backup controllers and so on, he is doing the right thing by asking around people who have made high value purchases to find out which ones work w/ Linux, and which don't.

    So if you had this job, all you'd do is visit the websites of the vendors in question and look @ their online product catalogs, where they are bound to list their shortcomings as well as their strengths? Good idea!

  11. My Day Job. by cheetah · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok first thing first, I work for ImageStream as the Technical Support manager. So I might have a slightly biased viewpoint when it comes to the place I have been working for the last 16 years... But we have been doing Linux Based networking for the last 14 years.

    What the OP wants to do is rather difficult for a few reasons. First, after shipping thousands of Linux based routers I can tell you that redundant power supplies that fit into standard PC hardware have a much higher failure rate than a standard Power Supply. Granted, if you have a failure you still have a functional power supply(which is now working twice as hard and is even more likely to fail).

    Second, standard PC hardware just doesn't support multiple redundant components. Sure you can get redundant power supplies, but redundant buses or Cpu's your talking different about a totally different class of hardware(see below).

    Third, If you truly have an Enterprise application, and your asking about hardware to support your application you are already in over your head. Sorry it's just the truth. The OP is talking about building a custom solution for a mission critical application and they have to ask on slashdot about hardware solutions. What happens when(not if) the OP has a problem. The real reason that many people buy our(ImageStream's) hardware is for the support. If something doesn't work they don't have try and troubleshoot a strange Pci bus condition or an obscure Linux Kernel issue that you only see when you have +5,000 networking interfaces in a system. It's one thing if your a Google and you want to build something that just doesn't exist like the OpenFlow switches they are using in their Gscale network. But for a normal organization you are going to spend money and time to develop your custom solution and in the end if anything doesn't work, you will spend more time fixing it.

    Now if the OP still wants to do this... I would look at an ATCA (AdvancedTCA ) chassis. You can get support for a redundant dual loop back plane, multiple CPU cards, redundant power supplies and in most cases a out of band management module for the chassis. But this is VERY costly hardware. If your not budgeting at least $20k in hardware your likely not going to end-up with anything that had real redundancy.

  12. Redundant Hardware: Complete waste of money. by Quick+Reply · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is something different to all the other experts.

    It is absolutely useless to have redundant hardware, eg: Dual PSUs, Dual CPUs, Dual Motherboards, etc. on the same computer. You will never be able to 100% protect against a hardware failure as they will invariably share hardware to allow the interconnection between the redundant components to occur, it is unlikely to protect from things like a short circuit/power surge which would take out everything until the UPS. Then if a component does fail, to repair it your are going to have to take it offline to restore that redundancy anyway.

    You are far better off getting two (or more) completely separate servers, geographically diverse if possible, which uses software to provide redundancy. If one goes down, the other(s) would be powerful enough to handle all the load, and when everything is rosey, it just load balances.

    The real world difference is you are looking at a $5000 server with identical specs as a $20,000 but without all the redundant PSUs, etc. but you would be better off buying two $5,000 servers ($10,000 total), set them up to have redundancy of each other (So you truely have two COMPLETELY separate sets in redundant hardware of all components, and geographically separate too if possible), and as a bonus you have twice as much computing power (or scale down power draw when not needed) for when both servers are working. If you need to pull one down for maintenance, you don't need to shut off the whole thing.

    If you are into Dual PSUs, etc. equipment in addition to also load balancing/fallover between other servers which also have redundancy, this is pointless because you should have ability to cope with the complete failure of a "redundant" server anyway, for the time it takes to replace the defective part the window that the other server(s) will have a failure in that time is not very high.

    The only exception to this is Hard Drives, Hard Drives make sense for redundancy, not just because of their high rate of failure, but the fact that if there is a failure, it is a lot more work to recover from (Whereas other components are just a straight hardware swap) so it is saving extra work in the long run.

    For a smaller environment where a small amount of downtime would be acceptable, You can even have a Cold Server, an exactly clone of the Main Server ready to go with all the software setup but powered off until needed if there is fault with the main server, the Cold Server can then be powered on to take over. There is no redundancy or fall over with this, but then again, in a smaller environment, your app might not support any kind of redundancy. With a Cold Server, just turn off the faulty server, switch on the cold server, restore the latest data set, and off you go. Microsoft doesn't require that Cold Servers hold a separate license either.

    1. Re:Redundant Hardware: Complete waste of money. by Trogre · · Score: 2

      In principle I agree with you, but take exception to your dismissal of dual PSUs.

      All our servers run affordable dual PSU units, with single backplanes and modular PSU trays. These fit into standard ATX PSU bays so special cases aren't needed. These weren't purchased due to anticipating PSU module failure, but upstream power source failure. We can power down any one UPS in our server room without affecting any servers. Given the reliability of UPSs and the occasional need to move cables, etc, this is a definite bonus for us.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  13. Forget component redundancy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go with the cheap router and buy TWO or more.

    Deploy using VRRP or other active/standby or active/active configuration.