thx jeff. yeah, all these ports are actually already in ae bundles. and i've disabled flow-control on all of 'em. seems like the best i can do, i guess.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jeff Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:01 PM, ryanL <[email protected]> wrote: >> good discussion. the tl;dr - nothing i can do about it. right? > > You can add LACP/ECMP ports/paths to reduce the chance that packets > need to be buffered so long that the buffer becomes full. > > To use a dirty word, flow-control might be an option as well. > However, you need to carefully test the particular switch and software > to see if it works with any sanity. Also remember that flow-control > is likely to effectively cause HoL blocking on a port transmitting a > lot of traffic toward another port that is busy, and other ports which > aren't. For example, you would not want to send flow-control to a > 10GE storage server's port that is transmitting to any 1GE ports > because it would likely be harmful to storage performance for all > connected hosts, whenever just one host's port is full. I personally > think that the complexity, buggyness, and potential gotchas of > flow-control far out-weigh the small potential gains. > > -- > Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> > Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
