Trident3 vs Jericho2

Fri Apr 9 13:40:00 UTC 2021

>
> 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:

> 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 <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------------------------------
> *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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210409/913e9803/attachment.html>