Considerations when selecting a network OS

When selecting a network device OS, Luxoft recommends that developers consider the following best practices:

Working with newer kernel/OS versions is desirable for better community support

The OS should be kept as close as possible to the vanilla/upstream variant; this makes maintenance and upgrades easier

Having HW components with upstream OS support is highly desired

Recommended OS solutions:

Yocto custom OS distribution

ONL based OS distribution

Buildroot custom OS distribution

Debian based OS distribution

Consider the tradeoffs between ease of use/development and the degree of customization required to meet the network device requirements:

Ease of development

• Looks and feels like desktop Linux by default

• Has large rootfs

• Designed for embedded system

• Minimum size rootfs by default

• Designed for embedded system

Desktop distribution Yocto Buildroot System

• Small rootfs

• Is well-known by the community, and only requires a basic knowledge of Linux

• High learning curve, difficult for beginners

• Quick to get up and running, and easy to understand

Configuration/ Update

• Package managerruntime

• Partial manual build and deployment

Component customization

• Distribution component is already prepackaged

• Image build is fast

• Sources incremental builds

• Sources build

• Full manual build and deployment Build

• Rebuild needed when change in package

• Can create your own Debian package, but can be difficult to maintain as it’s not designed for it

• Apply patches on Yocto sources (Designed for it)

• Apply patches via Makefile

Maintainability

• Maintenance is done by the desktop community

• Support and porting must be done manually if using custom packages

• Yocto Project has long-term support

• Layers may require some corrections and updates

• Designed for continuous integration

• Buildroot git version branches and _br2- external_mechanism

Source: https://witekio.com/blog/yocto-vs-the-competition-which-is-the-best-build-system/

Strategic commercial platforms

When it comes to strategic commercial platforms, DentOS and Sonic have their strengths and weaknesses. DentOS is an excellent choice for organizations that require a high level of flexibility in their network operations. Its compatibility with a wide range of hardware platforms makes it suitable for organizations that use diverse networking devices. Additionally, DentOS is backed by a strong community of developers who provide support and continuously improve the operating system.

On the other hand, Sonic is suitable for organizations that require a stable and secure network operating system. Sonic’s use of a Debian base provides a secure platform for network administrators, and its features are optimized for high-end networking devices. Additionally, Sonic is backed by a strong community of developers who continuously improve the operating system.

Alignment with chip vendors

When choosing between DentOS and Sonic, it is essential to consider alignment with chip vendors such as Marvell or Broadcom. Both DentOS and Sonic support a broad range of hardware platforms, including those from Marvell and Broadcom. However, it is essential to ensure that the operating system is optimized for the specific hardware platform to ensure optimal performance.

Other chip vendors

Apart from Marvell and Broadcom, there are other chip vendors in the market, including Intel and Qualcomm. Both DentOS and Sonic support hardware platforms from these vendors. When choosing between the two operating systems, it is essential to ensure that the hardware platform is compatible with the operating system.