Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:50:49 -0800 (PST) From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> To: stefan@exis.net Cc: jdd@vbc.net, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, chad@gaianet.net, isp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Decision in Router Purchase Message-ID: <199611142250.OAA04577@chimp.jnx.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.961114175400.1764D-100000@tarpon.exis.net> (message from Stefan Molnar on Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:59:11 -0500 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That was one idea a few months ago, but we got some MegaT ds1 mux units for better threwput, since the cisco can not handle the load ballance of the 2 Ts that are on it. The cisco does load sharing, not load balancing. The MUX (of course), does MUXing and can increase your effective bandwidth. Whether it's cost-effective depends on your personal situation. In general, a cisco will give you about 80% of the bandwidth of two T1's through load sharing. This gets worse if the number of entries in your fast switching cache is low. But from everything that I have seen, from the o'really books, to the lame teachings of my cne lessions, and people from cisco and andersen consulting say a t1 run at 1.54 (after all the overhead). If it was that high, 3.0 then something is wrong in IEEE land. You are correct in that T1 is 1.54Mbps (_before_ overhead), however it's full duplex. Thus, the _aggregate_ bandwidth of the link is ~3Mbps. Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611142250.OAA04577>