Are you fixing that switch? Or setting it up as a Minecraft server?

Cisco has published a guide to running Minecraft on its switches. Borg developer advocate Florian Pachinger sensibly justified the feat by asking: "Why not host your computer game servers directly on the switch instead of connecting to any dedicated server far away – it's closer locally." It's actually not much of a trick: …

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea

I still remember the older days of running Doom and Quake 2 over the LAN.

Having a container with an actual Minecraft server on the switch seems like a good idea. However not so sure when the Infrastructure and Ops team manager finds out.

[sanmigueelbeer]

Re: Good idea

However not so sure when IF the Infrastructure and Ops team manager finds out.

There, FTFY.

[J. Cook]

Re: Good idea

... unless the infrastructure manager is the one who put it there to begin with... *snicker*

[Pascal Monett]

OK, so can run a game server on a switch

I have just one question : why the hell does a switch have that much computing power ?

Seems like a waste to me for something that is supposed to just route packets. Obviously, so much functionality has been added that what was once a simple packet router has become a full-fledged PC in its own right.

Sounds like overkill to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

Processing power if relatively cheap today, and for a long time some switched did more than just routing packets - not running whole containers, true.

[schplazingo]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

They've got the functionality to run containers plus the CPU horsepower to do it because customers requested it.

Throw one of those into a branch office and a lot of what you might need for that office - routing, wireless controller, DHCP, DNS etc - can run directly on the switch with no extra hardware required.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

> Throw one of those into a branch office and a lot of what you might need for that office - routing, wireless controller, DHCP, DNS etc - can run directly on the switch with no extra hardware required.

Surely at that point, said device is no longer a switch?

[phuzz]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

In a home environment we'd call it a 'router', even though they usually do a lot more than route packets (eg DNS, DHCP, wifi etc.)

[Down not across]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

I wouldn't (unless you're running L3 switch with reasonable feature set perhaps the line gets bit blurred) call it a router. Yes many home routers have 4 port switch built in as well, and some modular enterprise routers have switch modules available. That said, 9300 is a switch not a router.

Since you brought routers into the discussion, it might be worth pointing out that CPU (and to an extent memory) is a real issue. Sure if you're just passing packets that can take advantage of hardware acceleration you don't need much CPU. Once you add more complex firewall rules (or heaven forbid DPI and/or IDS) or anything else that causes the packet to be handled by CPU, the CPU load goes up considerably and your maximum throughput drops massively.

[richardcox13]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

A typical home router contains:

- WAN modem (or multiple for ADSL and VDSL)

- Backup WAN connection

- Multiple Wi-Fi Access points (including a guest network)

- A LAN switch

- A router between LAN, multiple Wi-Fi and main and backup WAN connections.

- NAT, Firewall, DHS, DHCP, ... fuinctions

Guest Wi-Fi only routes to/from the WAN ports (no LAN access).

Yes, a lot more than a router, but most definitely a router making choices on which port to send a packet based on which subnet it came from in addition to its destination.

Considerable more capable than early IP routers...

[chuBb.]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

Surely if you run one of the many routing docker containers out there you could bodge a franken router out of this, that or I would just get a kick out of running virtualised juniper or hp network stacks on borg kit

Wonder how much the license to enable docker is, as I can't imagine many asa's will sell if its a better roi to run one of the more security focused containers on a switch than an appliance. I mean just being able to run openvpn cannibilizes the security plus sku on asa's and then you have no licensing issues to contend with either if you want to say increase your remote working capacity 10 fold...

[Mark192]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

I guess the some answer is 'this isn't bought to be just a switch'.

They can host containers and run third-party applications and scripts natively within the switch.

Having other, more capable, devices to do what could be done natively within the switch could be considered overkill.

(Disclaimer: I've no idea what I'm talking about - came here for the creative headlines, stayed for the quality journalism)

[David 132]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

came here for the creative headlines, stayed for the quality journalism

...left, disappointed on both counts?

[Wellyboot]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

Yes, switching & routing packets has a fairly low cpu hit especially with the dedicated ASICs onboard.

It's when you start all the AAA, security monitoring, packet scanning & crypto that the CPU/mem load goes skyward. The 9300 is at the top end of stackables, there can be a lot of 10 or 40Gb/s ports to service as well as hundreds of gig ports.

Many corporate have a standard infrastructure model, Docker is just another use for spare capacity where there would otherwise be a need for a small server (Branch office)

edit: just as schplazingo above mentions

[sanmigueelbeer]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

why the hell does a switch have that much computing power

I can answer this question: Remember the short-lived 3650/3850? Cisco engineered the platform with not enough memory (like FPGA). This is why the switch cannot run Converged Access (making the switch become a WLC) any more.

The new 9K have more CPU and memory (from what I was told 4x the amount).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

"Remember the short-lived 3650/3850?"

They were announced in 2012 and available from January 2013, reaching end of sales in October2020. And yes, they start to run short of memory for the latest features but they are fixed configuration so aren't able to adjust easily - thats why you have alternate models t choose.

How long do you want them to be available for?

[Stuart Castle]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

It's cheaper.. The likes of Arm, Qualcomm etc are designing and building relatively powerful processors for use in consumer devices, such as Phones. Because they are turning them out by the million, the price per unit is incredibly low.

Now, Cisco comes along. They want to build a new switch. They are looking for a CPU. What do they go for? Custom designed silicon, that has enough processing power for their needs, but comes with a design cost as well as a manufacturing cost? Or an existing CPU that they can either use without change, or base a new CPU on? Bearing in mind that designing a new CPU can cost millions, even before you've produced your first chip.

Another reason is processing headroom. With more and more services being added to network hardware (such as local caches in a content distribution network), more processing power will be needed, but companies aren't go to rip out all their networking hardware regularly, especially bearing in mind some companies will have thousands of items of networking hardware. In short, with networking hardware, because you aren't going to replace it regularly, you work out how much processing power, storage and bandwidth you actually need, then at least double it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

Extra compute power to support a fancy GUI for the sales glossies (even though most self respecting network people will use the CLI)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: OK, so can run a game server on a switch

In a modern top-of-rack switch, moving packets is handled by a custom ASIC (generally a Broadcom chip) with a management processor (generally x86 running some flavour of Linux).

While Minecraft on these switches is a gimmick, I know some vendors are providing more powerful CPU's for this type of application as they can carry out either low latency tasks or more detailed analysis of high speed connections in a decentralised manner before passing the results back to a centralised reporting server.

[Sgt_Oddball]

But.... But!

Can it run Crysis?

I would get coat but I'm already home and they sya I shouldn't leave it.

*shouts onto the street* but doesn't this mean naughty types can deploy naughty Docker servers on these switches then? How updated does it keep the host docker instance? What about the.... *sound of annoyed better half dragging a body further into the house*

[Kane]

Re: But.... But!

"Can it run Crysis?"

More importantly, can it run Crysis Remastered?

[ILLQO]

Re: But.... But!

Lets be honest, Crysis Remastered is still just Crysis (The original) just that hardware is a bit improved so they figured re-boxing it will make some quick cash.

The US government is investing in a massive supercomputer that they say will be used for nuclear testing, but in truth is solely for the purpose of running Crysis on Max setting and maintaining a framerate above 4.

[Lorribot]

Putting the ability to run containers and VMs on switches? What could possibly go wrong with that?

A hackers delight.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

With the ability to run malware and phishing scams on premises in the switch there is a great saving in upstream bandwidth and hosting costs for the black hats

[Vulture@C64]

I wish Cisco would put as much effort into keeping their SMART software portal updated/bug free as they obviously do creating rubbish like this. You'd be mad to run things like this on a switch but then again, you'd be mad to buy Cisco now the SMART term based licensing is enforced and the switches need to call home to verify licensing, rather than Juniper which just keeps it simple and does the job well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cumulus

Methinks they are feeling the heat from the likes of Cumulus - the ability to run arbitrary services and containers on switches is nothing new, especially when you have the entire Debian repos at your disposal.