[Gluster-users] 40 gig ethernet

Robert Hajime Lanning lanning at lanning.cc
Sat Jun 15 18:46:53 UTC 2013

On 06/15/13 00:50, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Uh, you should throw away your GigE switch. Example:
> # ping
> PING ( 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.310 ms
> 64 bytes from icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms
> 64 bytes from icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms
> 64 bytes from icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms

What is the make and model of your GigE switch?

I get:
114 packets transmitted, 114 received, 0% packet loss, time 113165ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.350/0.380/0.608/0.027 ms

On a not loaded WS-C3560X-48.  Though it might not be the switch.
It could be the NIC on either side of the ping, Or anything up through 
the kernel, where the ping response is generated.

Granted, my numbers are at home, between an Atom 330 and an AMD G-T56N, 
both with RealTek on motherboard NICs.

AMD G-T56N <=> RealTek <=> WS-C3560X-48 <=> RealTek <=> Atom 330

So, now data from work:
48 packets transmitted, 48 received, 0% packet loss, time 47828ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.110/0.158/0.187/0.022 ms

That is through a WS-C6513-E with a 2T supp card, then through the TOR 
WS-C3560X-48.  So, I have lower latency with the ADDITION of the 6513 
(not replacement, extra switch hop).  Which means my NICs and up to 
Layer 7 (kernel) are the major players here.

Work ping is between two identical HP DL360s (Xeon E5649, with Broadcom 
NetXtreme II GigE)

Xeon E5649 <=> Broadcom <=> WS-C6513-E <=> WS-C3560X-48 <=> Broadcom <=> 
Xeon E5649

Mr. Flibble
King of the Potato People

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list