10GE TOR port buffers (was Re: 10G switch recommendaton)
bas
kilobit at gmail.com
Fri Jan 27 16:35:16 UTC 2012
Hi,
Is there a reason switch vendors 1U TOR 10GE aggregation switches are
all cut-through and there are no models with deep buffers?
I've ben looking at all vendors I can think of and all have the same models.
TOR switches as cut-through with little buffers, and chassis based
boxes with deep buffers.
TOR:
Juniper EX4500 208KB/10GE (4MB shared per PFE)
Cisco 4900M 728KB/10GE (17.5MB shared)
Cisco Nexus 3064 140KB/10GE (9MB shared)
Cisco Nexus 5000 680KB/10GE
Force10 S2410 I can't find it anymore, but it wasn't much
Arista 7148SX 123KB/10GE (80KB per port plus 5MB dynamic)
Arista 7050S 173KB/10GE (9MB shared)
Brocade VDX 6730-32 170KB/10GE
Brocade TurboIron 24X 85KB/10GE
HP 6600-24XG 4500KB/10GE
HP 5820-24XG-SFP+ 87KB/10GE
Extreme Summit X650 375KB/10GE
Chassis:
Juniper EX8200-8XS 512MB/10GE
Cisco WS-X6708-10GE 32MB/10GE (or 24MB)
Cisco N7K-M132XP-12 36MB/10GE
Arista DCS-7548S-LC 48MB/10GE
Brocade BR-MLX-10Gx8-X 128MB/10GE (not sure)
1GE aggregation.
Force10 S60 1250MB shared
HP 5830 3000MB shared
I am at a loss why there are no 10GE TOR switches with deep buffers.
Apparently there is a need for deep buffers as the vendors make them
available in the chassis linecards.
There also are deep buffer 1GE aggregation switches.
Is there some (technical) reason for this?
I can imagine some vendors would say that you need to scale up to a
chassis if you need deep buffers, but at least one vendor should be
able to get quite some customers with a 10G deep buffer TOR switch.
I understand that flow-control should prevent loss with microbursts,
but in my customers get adverse effects, with strong negative
performance if they let flow-control do its thing.
Any pointers why this is, or if there is a solution for microburst
loss would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Bas
More information about the NANOG
mailing list