nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
From: David Hughes <David () hughes com au>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:14:48 +1000
On 26/08/2009, at 6:21 AM, Mike Bartz wrote:
We experienced the joy of using the X6148 cards with a SAN/ESX cluster. Lots of performance issues! A fairly inexpensive solution was to switch tothe X6148A card instead, which does not suffer the the 8:1 oversubscription. It also supports MTU's larger than 1500, which was another shortcoming of the older card.
Actually, the "A" variant of the x6148 is still 8:1 oversubscribed. The significant difference between the x6148 and x6148a is the buffer size. The original card had 1.4MB of buffer per port group (8 ports) while the "A" upgrade supports 5.5MB per port. Oh, that and support for 9k jumbo frames.
It's still a classic bus card, it still has the same QoS queues, and is still 8:1 over subscribed.
David ...
Current thread:
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509., (continued)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Sean Donelan (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Andrew Parnell (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 24)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 24)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Mike Bartz (Aug 25)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. David Hughes (Aug 26)