Honestly I wouldn't do anything line rate servers on 3XXX. YMMV, if you don't push them hard enough you won't have problems.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Michael Malitsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Biggest issue is buffer space. 3750X has 2750KB shared between 24 GE ports. > Switch models starting with 29XX are similar or worse. 3650 and 3850 show > 12MB shared between 48 ports > (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-3650-series-switches/qa_c67-729531.html). > I believe the memory allocation mechanism is also significantly improved on > the 3650/3850, but don't have the links handy to support this. > > We've been using 3650s to support EMC VNXe SANs, very successfully so far. > Also used them to terminate Metro-E connections. No problems, as opposed to > the predecessors, 3550 and 3560G, which racked up output drops due to lack of > buffers. > Check your expected bandwidth needs, and the number of 10G ports. 3650 is > likely to be a good fit. > > 4948E shows 17.5MB of memory shared between 48 ports. I believe it is a 4500 > Sup6-E in a fixed chassis with 48 ports, so fairly old by now. That said, I > have Sup6 in production supporting SAN and Metro-E with no problems. > > Sincerely, > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam > Greene > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] switch for SAN > > Hi all, > > I know running Catalyst switches for SAN backbone fabric is not the best > idea, due to limited buffers. > However, we have been doing just that with a 3750X and Dell Equallogic > 6100/4100s for quite some time, with no issues. > We are putting in a NetApp FAS3160 and need to add a switch. I see 3750X is > EOL and Cisco positions the 3850 as its replacement. 3850 is even slightly > less expensive than 3750X. > > Questions: > - Should we expect the 3850 to perform as well or better than the > 3750X for this application? > - Is there any other switch we should be looking at which is not > humongously more expensive? Maybe Nexus 3k could work, but it's a lot more > expensive. Maybe 4948E? Seems up there price-wise, too . > > Thanks, > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
