On 1/27/12 14:53 , bas wrote: > While I agree _again_!!!!! > > It does not explain why TOR boxes have little buffers and chassis box > have many.....
you need purportionally more buffer when you need to drain 16 x 10 gig into 4 x 10Gig then when you're trying to drain 10Gb/s into 2 x 1Gb/s there's a big incentive bom wise to not use offchip dram buffer in a merchant silicon single chip switch vs something that's more complex. > 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. >> >> > >
