Trident3 vs Jericho2

Fri Apr 9 14:09:53 UTC 2021

I have seen the opposite, where small buffers impacted throughput. 

Then again, it was observation only, no research into why, other than superficial. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher at beecher.cc> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
Cc: "Dmitry Sherman" <dmitry at interhost.net>, "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 8:40:00 AM 
Subject: Re: Trident3 vs Jericho2 

If you have all the same port speed, small buffers are fine. If you have 100G and 1G ports, you'll need big buffers wherever the transition to the smaller port speed is located. 

While the larger buffer there you are likely to be severely impacting application throughput. 

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:05 AM Mike Hammett < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: 

<blockquote>

What I've observed is that it's better to have a big buffer device when you're mixing port speeds. The more dramatic the port speed differences (and the more of them), the more buffer you need. 

If you have all the same port speed, small buffers are fine. If you have 100G and 1G ports, you'll need big buffers wherever the transition to the smaller port speed is located. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

From: "Dmitry Sherman" < dmitry at interhost.net > 
To: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 7:57:05 AM 
Subject: Trident3 vs Jericho2 

Once again, which is better shared buffer featurerich or fat buffer switches? 
When its better to put big buffer switch? When its better to drop and retransmit instead of queueing? 

Thanks. 
Dmitry 

</blockquote>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210409/0e11eee3/attachment.html>