You could get a cisco switch that supports cut through instead of
store-and-forward, for lower latency.
Other than that, compare the port to port forwarding times and see if
there is a difference between the switches you are looking at (probably
not) and make your decision based on that. Consider connecting
everything to two switches, for failover in case a switch breaks?
On 1/27/2012 2:04 PM, Dan Bretherton wrote:
Dear All,
I need to buy a bigger GigE switch for my GlusterFS cluster and I am
trying to decide whether or not a much more expensive one would be
justified. I have limited experience with networking so I don't know
if it would be appropriate to spend £500, £1500 or £3500 for a 48-port
switch. Those rough costs are based on a comparison of 3 Dell
Powerconnect switches: the 5548 (bigger version of what we have now),
the 6248 and the 7048. The servers in the cluster are nothing special
- mostly Supermicro with SATA drives and 1GigE network adapters. I
can only justify spending more than ~£500 if I can be sure that users
would notice the difference. Some of the users' applications do lots
of small reads and writes, and they do run much more slowly if all the
servers are not connected to the same switch, as is the case now while
I don't have a big enough switch. Any advice or comments would be
much appreciated.
Regards
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
