On 14 March 2014 10:02, Jason Manley wrote:
> I'm not sure... I didn't investigate much further once I figured out it'd
> work fine for our application.
Can't argue with that :)
Sounds like some benchmarking is in order...
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:55, Jack Hickish wrote:
>
>> Tha
I'm not sure... I didn't investigate much further once I figured out it'd work
fine for our application. This was sending data through a switch, so it could
even have been due to the switch fabric. I didn't try a direct cable
connection. But it might be there's overhead in our 10GbE core's CPU/f
Thanks Jason. That info is really helpful.
It sounds like if I boost my packets to ~1% header overhead, I
shouldn't reckon on being able to throw away less than 5% of the
bandwidth.
Out of interest, do you know what limit you're hitting at 96% data
rate (I interpreted raw data rate to mean payloa
You can push them pretty hard. We're reliably running at an average of around
90% wire speed on all four links for MeerKAT. But be sure to factor-in the
overheads of the core...
In our case:
L1 Ethernet HDR & FTR44B
IPv4 header 20B
UDP header8B
Application heade
Hi all,
I have an application that generates 40 Gb/s of data and I'd like to
output it over 4 x 10GbE links (i.e. one roach2 mezzanine card).
I'm going to have to throw some data away to make room for packetising
overhead, and right now I'm trying to work out how much, to see
whether I should jus
5 matches
Mail list logo
