Which is more efficient?

Josh Potter joshpotter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 17:11:51 CST 2009


What type of traffic are you looking at sending?

As Scott said smaller payloads that need to be sent quickly work out well in
fixed cells but larger payloads would be better off in variable sized
packets.

Also are you looking at simple data transmission rates or are you wanting to
factor in hardware load, backplane load, cpu efficiency etc?

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Scott Berkman <scott.berkman at reignmaker.net
> wrote:

> Packets can have a max size as well based on the path MTU, such as 1500
> bytes in an Ethernet (10/100) link.  I think there are a lot of other
> variables here such as are you billed per data unit, bandwidth and control
> factors on the links, and what type of data is being sent.
>
> If your data can always fit in a smaller N-byte cell, that can be quite
> efficient since you have minimal overhead or wasted space and all the
> benefits of the fixed length data unit from a processing standpoint.
>
> If you are constantly fragmenting and then having to reassemble data due
> to the small cell size, you would be better off with a variable length
> packet, especially when bandwidth is less in demand than processing power.
>
>        -Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murphy, Jay, DOH [mailto:Jay.Murphy at state.nm.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:56 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Which is more efficient?
>
>
> All,
>
> In your humble opinion, which transmission method is more efficient,
> packet or cell?  Granted a cell is a fixed length packet and an IP packet
> is variable length....would this necessarily only relate to a specific
> protocol,  namely, cell in ATM, and IP in Ethernet or other  types of
> domains....feedback highly welcomed.  Trying to make a decision on the
> transport mode for cost, delay, jitter, ROI, etcetera.
>
>
> Jay Murphy
> IP Network Specialist
> NM Department of Health
> ITSD - IP Network Operations
> Santa Fé, New México 87502
> Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851
>
> "We move the information that moves your world."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the
> sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New
> Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this
> message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email
> System.
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Josh Potter


More information about the NANOG mailing list