[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 192.168.83.1
> PING 192.168.83.1 (192.168.83.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.310 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.83.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms
What is the make and model of your GigE switch?
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 <=>
King of the Potato People
More information about the Gluster-users