On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
the example we are talking about below, an _approximately_ 5Gb/s stream on an _approximately_ full pipe the performance will be significantly better than you imply. And I have customers that do it pretty regularly (2 ~500Mb/s streams per GE port - telemetry data) on their equipment with very small buffers (3550s).
Well, my experience is that 500 meg on a gig link background, and then a single highspeed tcp stream on top of that, it's basically the same thing as putting a 500 meg policer on it. And on a 500 meg policer on a gig link and trying to go as fast as you can with a gig-connected machine, you won't be able to use the remaining 500 meg, you'll get 200-300 meg.
I suppose your example of transoceanic connectivity vs an 80km span was an example where a congestion case would exist for a long time rather than a decent upgrade plan. I guess that is a spend more on HW vs spend more on connectivity model -- or trust that C or J overengineered so the network doesn't have to be properly engineered [by assumption].
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. If connectivity is expensive, spend more on what you connect to that connectivity, if connectivity is cheap, buy two and buy cheaper things to connect to it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se