Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: "D. Stussy" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:00:58 -0800
"Steve Wampler" <swampler@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:agdo16x9os.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Wampler wrote:
It is? 960MB is 9.6% of 10GB.
True, but it's 96% of 10Gb.
The moment I sent this, I just *knew* someone would do
the math :).
That's a (very) rough approximation to point out that
10GB ~= 10Gb. The actual % is lower, but without knowing
10GB ~= 100Gb. There is at least a factor of 8 (perhaps more,
depending on transmission characteristics) between the two.
frame size, protocol (TCP vs UDP), etc., it's hard to get
an accurate number. Someone with more network smarts
than me (uh, that'd be most of you...) can do the real
math. Anyway, the % is high enough that I worry about
sending 960MB/s sustained down a 10GbE wire, though thanks
to Rick's input I'm worrying a little less than before!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Steve Wampler
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- References:
- load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Steve Wampler
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Rick Jones
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Steve Wampler
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: david
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Steve Wampler
- Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- From: Steve Wampler
- load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- Prev by Date: Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- Next by Date: Re: SO_BINDTODEVICE
- Previous by thread: Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- Next by thread: Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|