> On Dec 3, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Dave Taht > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Pete Heist wrote: >>> >>> I like the name. “dornierdox” doesn’t have the same smooth ring: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X (Powerplant: 12× Curtiss >>> Conqueror water-cooled V12) >> >> Heh. I had not heard of that plane. Ceiling, 500 feet. > > "As a result of its size, passengers were asked to crowd together on > one side or the other to help make turns. " > > very apt analogy for these mailing lists! Indeed. "A successor, the Do-20, was envisioned by Dornier, but never advanced beyond the design study stage.” Really? I’m shocked. >>> Who decides to build that? >> Howard Hughes? >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules Another behemoth... >>> I still think a box like that will be useful for veth testing. >> >> I put it through some paces last night, trying 4Gbit workloads. >> >>> >>> I’ve been really happy with the 2x APU2 you suggested, for their four cores >>> and silence. I even think 2-3 more of them could be useful for different >>> testing topologies as we discussed. >> >> I like them a lot, too. We have to come up with a test that uses up 3 >> ethernet ports... I have just such a test planned, as a middlebox for poor-man’s full-duplex p2p WiFi. One port in, one for egress and one for ingress, same on the other end of the link. I tried it last year with 2xAPUv1 but one link was still a cable because I didn’t have four NSM5s, so the results looked artificially good. Now I have them, so it’s just a matter of setting it up again...