On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:17:39 -0600, Jeff Bacon wrote > > > I've read through the data sheets, and I also can't see any > signficant > > > differences. I was wondering if there was some hardware differences > (like > > > CAM table size, ethernet input/output buffer sizes), etc... > > Is the packet buffering on the -Es significantly better than on the > non-Es? It would seem that the buffering capabilities of a non-E are at > best limited, based on my experience - granted we have bursty server > loads that we were attempting to condense down into 4-port > etherchannels, but I would have expected the 3560Gs to do better than > they did.
In fact, 3560Es perform worse in the default configuration than 3560Gs. Buffers might be tweaked via mls qos commands, but still, the buffering is insufficient - have a look at: http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2009-March/058758.html M. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
