[Beowulf] Gigabit switch recommendations
mwill at penguincomputing.com
Thu Mar 30 09:11:20 PST 2006
Should be fun for a technically adept laywer to cash in on the false
From: beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org [mailto:beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Mattox
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:04 AM
To: beowulf at beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Gigabit switch recommendations
Hello fellow Beowulfers,
IMNSHO, Marketing Departments should be jailed... or at least not
allowed to do the "technical specs" pages for networking products.
And at a minimum, they need to be flogged with a wet noodle... :-)
The following technical buzzwords used to mean something when they
were included on the "technical specs" (now turned into "glossy
brochures") for a network switch:
full backplane bandwidth
X Gbps backplane bandwidth (replace X with some random number)
X Gbps aggregate bandwidth
These days, the above are pretty much the buzwords/buzphrases that are
on every commodity switch even if they don't apply. (Along with various
dubious management "features".) See this switch which I looked at
earlier this week... It's technical specs clearly have an error relative
to the marketspeak on the same page:
At the very top it says:
Yet near the bottom of the same page it says:
"Bandwidth: 40 Gbps"
It's a 48-port Gigabit Ethernet (on every port) switch... for it to
truly be non-blocking, it would have to have at least 96 Gbps bandwidth.
(Or 48 Gbps if you are not counting in both directions... but AFAIK,
you do need to count for bidirectional... and thus 96 Gbps of internal
bandwidth would be required to be non-blocking on 48 GigE
ports.) Now, this could just be a simple typo, where the tech specs
from a smaller 16 or 24 (20?) port switch were copied... but that still
wouldn't be right, and well, just copying tech specs from one device for
use in another brochure seems very wrong to me. Why include the tech
specs if they are not for that device...
But if they had said "96 Gbps", I still wouldn't really believe them,
since I've seen too many where it was obvious the marketers just
multiplied the port count by 2 Gbps, which had no correlation to the
performance of the internals of the switch.
Does anyone know of a magazine or organization that regularly benchmarks
and tests these performance claims for the
*commodity* networking industry?
I know about the Tolly Group and http://www.networkworld.com/ which
periodically are commissioned to benchmark the latest & greatest
switches, etc. from the name brand vendors (latest I see is a test of a
10 Gbps/port 24-port Force10 switch, which was of course very
impressive... and way out of the price-range for the clusters I'm
typically asked to help design).
What I've been looking for is benchmarks of the switches that are under
$1000. Anyone know of any that have been done?
I wish buying network equipment was like buying orange juice, where it
really didn't matter much which brand you got, and you could read the
carton to look for things like fortified with Calcium, or whatnot...
and then look at the pricetag for $/ounce and make your choice.
Anyway, off my soapbox, and back to dissertation writing... I'm almost
done... but not done yet...
Footnote : Maybe those buzzwords never really meant anything, and it
is just me being foolish thinking they did at some point have meaning...
our original 32-port Fast Ethernet switches on KLAT2 back in 2000 had
all the right buzzwords... yet were clearly not capable of their claimed
performance (I checked the true tech specs of the chips they were built
with, once we had purchased them, and, well, after they started dying.
But that was years ago, and those switch carcasses (um, evidence?) are
long gone... Hmm, didn't I say I was getting off my soapbox... ;-)
FYI - here are some links to a variety of 48-port commodity GigE
switches, that may be worth looking at (but as another poster indicated,
these might actually all be the same switch built by an OEM and just
One can only really tell by opening one up and looking at the PCB and
chips that are inside.):
NETGEAR ProSafe GS748TNA
(This is the one with the funky tech spec mismatch I talked about
On 3/30/06, Bruce Allen <ballen at gravity.phys.uwm.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:01:03PM -0600, Bruce Allen wrote:
> >> After discussions with some of their technical people, the
> >> conclusion was that the switch had enough buffer memory to run wire
> >> speed with MTU=1500 but not with MTU=9000.
> >> Our testing results are here:
> >> http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/~parmor/Network-performance/netpe
> >> rf.html
> > But according to that graph, the Dell 2716 switch gave performance
> > substantially below wire speed for ALL MTU sizes, including 1500.
> > So what's up with Dell's "wire speed but only at MTU=1500" story?
> You'll have to ask Dell! I agree that their explanation does not make
> sense, for exactly the reason that you gave. We didn't see wire speed
> performance even at MTU=1500.
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org To change your subscription
> (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
Tim Mattox - tmattox at gmail.com
I'm a bright... http://www.the-brights.net/
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org To change your subscription
(digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
More information about the Beowulf