On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:02 PM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > While attempting to ascertain how big of switch buffers I needed in a 100G > switch, I rediscovered this article where I first learned about switch > buffers. > > https://fasterdata.es.net/network-tuning/router-switch-buffer-size-issues/#:~:text=Optimum%20Buffer%20Size&text=The%20general%20rule%20of%20thumb,1G%20host%20across%20the%20WAN. > > It suggests that 60 meg is what you need at 10G. Is that per interface? Would > it be linear in that I would need 600 meg at 100G? > > Some 100G switches I was looking at only had 36 megs, so that's insufficient > either way you look at it.
Hi Mike, My thoughts: 1. 50 ms is -way- too much buffer. A couple links like that in the path and the user will suffer jitter in excess of 100ms which is incredibly disruptive for interactive applications. 2. The article discussed how much buffer to apply to the -slower- interfaces, not the faster ones, the idea being that data entering from the faster interfaces could otherwise overwhelm the slower ones resulting in needless retransmission and head-end blocking. Are the 100G interfaces on your switch the -slower- ones? I don't know the best number, but I suspect the speed at which packets clear an interface is probably a factor in the equation, so that the reasonable buffer depth in ms when a packet clears in 1ms is probably different than the reasonable buffer depth when a packet clears in 1 us. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
