While I agree _again_!!!!! It does not explain why TOR boxes have little buffers and chassis box have many.....
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:36 PM, George Bonser <gbon...@seven.com> wrote: >> >> Buffers in most network gear is bad, don't do it. >> > > +1 > > I'm amazed at how many will spend money on switches with more buffering but > won't take steps to ease the congestion. Part of the reason is trying to > convince non-technical people that packet loss in and of itself doesn't have > to be a bad thing, that it allows applications to adapt to network > conditions. They can use tools to see packet loss, that gives them something > to complain about. They don't know how to interpret jitter or understand > what impact that has on their applications. They just know that they can run > some placket blaster and see a packet dropped and want that to go away, so we > end up in "every packet is precious" mode. > > They would rather have a download that starts and stops and starts and stops > rather than have one that progresses smoothly from start to finish and trying > to explain to them that performance is "bursty" because nobody wants to allow > a packet to be dropped sails right over their heads. > > They'll accept crappy performance with no packet loss before they will accept > better overall performance with an occasional packet lost. > > If an applications is truly intolerant of packet loss, then you need to > address the congestion, not get bigger buffers. > >
