> If you want to cut delay for switching, you may want to consider the > new top-of-rack 10G boxes, which are typically cut-through. You may find
I'm thinking about that for within the datacenter. It's hard finding a justification for the C-vendor's products though - a N7 is just too much, and I guess the N5 is OK but even starting out it's not... inexpensive, esp when it doesn't even include a meaningful layer-3 capability. I guess I understand the product reasoning - a large datacenter is built around N7Ks, with N5K distro - which is great, if you have a massive datacenter... but what about us poor saps in the middle and lower tiers? Or aren't we interesting anymore? Oh, I understand, we're supposed to be virtualizing and buying the 1000v switches...except virtual servers don't do me crap for good... > Personally, I have a bit of a thing against X2, but that's just me. > Make your own mind up. Fair enough. > > 3) Does 6500 switching performance blow super-hard, or just so-so hard? > > (6-15us is ok.) Yes a 4900M might be faster, or a J-product, but I don't > > want to change platform really, I need NAT and don't want to use > > routers, I want to keep box count down (co-lo), and having a whole box > > just for passing 10G doesn't IMO make sense because I'd still have to > > get it into the 6500 anyway. > The 6500 is a great 1G switch platform, but doesn't excel in the 10G > range, particularly with 6704 blades. Admittedly, for the cost, I can buy an arista 1U for wave passthru and just tap multiple 1Gs over to the 6500. Why "particularly with 6704 blades"? Is there something particularly wrong with them? Thanks, -bacon _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
