> If the only way you can verify a router is working correctly is by
> monitoring the cpu usage then you are in pretty bad shape. If you really
> must know what the cpu is doing hook up an external monitor like they do at
> livingston (as MZ stated earlier) and monitor it.
I had a good laugh after reading this :) thanks...
Now a bit more serious: Can any Livingston product handle all
interfaces maxed handling minimum sized IP traffic? No. At what point
will performance degrade or drop packets? Don't know, because you can't
tell how it hard it is working at any point during its operation.
Come on... give me some credit...
> I look at it this way. ComOS works. It not only works, it works great.
Sure, except for the modem code, the telco signalling, and the IRX sync
performance problems (perhaps fixed in b17). Not a great track record.
But not any worse than anybody else.
> Now if you want them to totally re-write and re-engineer the code then I
> suggest you, and anyone else who wants this feature, volunteer to be guinea
> pigs for the months of alpha and beta testing while they get the new
> ComOS+CPU monitor code working. Personally I'd rather see them woking on
> features like NFAS and future support for IPv6. But I guess these features
> won't be worth anything since unless we can monitor the cpu usage then it
> can't be working.
Livingston has been promising NFAS since Oct '96.
There are also the stability issues with the PM3. I have had far to
many PM3s lock up, or just freak out, and require a power cycle.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Labyrinth Solutions Inc. Chris Britton
> Systems Manager P.O. Box 434
> brit@labyrinth.net Morgantown, WV 26507
>
>
>
Tom