Routers: Cisco vs. Linux?

[Matthew Carpenter]

Sure.  Cisco gear is not a flexible platform which can serve web as well as serving drinks.  As such, they don't require a RW filesystem all the time.  Their filesystems are basically only available for corruption during *very* infrequent code upgrades or config saves.  Linux OTOH, is capable and used for doing just about anything, including file-serving.  This requires a live filesytem all the time.  Most distros provide RW filesystems all the time by default and require some planning and often hacking to get the important stuff RO.  /etc and /var are almost always required to be RW and /var is quite active.  Of course, through use of RAM disks, this can be avoided, such is the case with Knoppix.  But again, the hacking element comes in.  Does that make more sense?  

Thanks,
Matt



On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:15:51 -0600
Michael Hipp <Michael at hipp.com> wrote:

> Matthew Carpenter wrote:
> > Basically anything a Cisco Router can do can be done on a Linux system.
> > Cisco gear has the following advantages:
> > * IOS and CatOS are easy to clear the config and start over
> > * Gear can be bounced frequently and often without losing the FS (whereas most Linux distributions require some major tweaking for something similar)
> > * IOS and CatOS are a single image file.
> > 
> > Flexibility is lost and Linux has immense advantages over the Cisco counterparts.  It boils down to taste.  Many big companies tend to choose Cisco... whether for the "HA" mentality or the fact that it must be better because it costs more...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I didn't understand this: "Gear can be bounced frequently and often 
> without losing the FS (whereas most Linux distributions require some 
> major tweaking for something similar)"
> 
> Could you explain?
> 
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-users mailing list
> Linux-users at smtp.linux-sxs.org
> Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
> 
>