[rescue] sparcstation IPC and sparcstation 1+
nimitz at nimitzbrood.com
Fri Nov 5 11:47:23 CST 2004
>> Or you could use them for really slow file/web/print/DNS servers.
> Come one, they should be decent for DNS servers. They should also be
> decent as print servers, provided that you aren't trying to run
> ghostscript on them. NTP servers also come to mind as a task they
> should be reasonable at. DHCP/BOOTP comes to mind here too.
I'll give you this one. DNS/NTP/DHCP/BOOTP are all services that these
boxes could run well. I run none of those at home so I never think about
>> The IPC is too slow for anything but a dial-up firewall and good luck
>> getting a modem to run on it at a decent speed.
> Really? I would have expected it to be able to keep up with basic
> NAT/ipf duties for most DSL type connections. Sure, there is a lot of
> fancy ipf stuff that can be done, but for the basics that I use, it's
> hard to imagine such a machine being unable to keep up.
> But, I must admit that I tried it on a SS2, not an IPC.
I've done it. The IPC just doesn't keep up. It was what I had when I
originally had Speakeasy at my previous living arrangement.
It would get seriously bogged if there was any sort of burst of traffic.
One step up to an SS2 and I'm still using that to this date. I intend to
trade it out for a U1 only because I want to arbitrate several network
legs and I tend to overdesign my network structure at times. The U1
really _is_ too much hardware for the job on a standard 5 static DSL
(1.6/128 *grumble* SBC) but I want to not have to worry about it. Besides
as cheap as U1s are it pays to retire older hardware for new. (I know -
"Who are you and what have you done with the real Mike?" - I'm just
finally coming to terms with the fact that my existing older hardware is
getting on in years and needs to be changed to expand my services at home.
I'm still not putting PC hardware in place of it though!) Since I'm not
currently doing my own DNS I'll most likely retire the SS2 to BIND duty
after replacing the NVRAM before it fails.
> Currently I'm using a U1 as a NAT box, but that's only because of it
> supporting higher speed serial onboard than the older machines did.
Yeah, if you want to support dial-in anything below a U1 is pretty pointless.
"I think we used too much!" - Chris Knight
More information about the rescue