From owner-freebsd-security Sun Aug 22 18:57: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C785915409 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 18:57:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [204.68.178.39] (helo=softweyr.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11IjM0-0005iI-00; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:56:56 -0600 Message-ID: <37C0AA66.FD70C73C@softweyr.com> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:56:54 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Chris Dillon , Cliff Skolnick , jay d , Evren Yurtesen , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: multiple machines in the same network References: <199908220649.XAA31700@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote: > > Your making a common mistake here when an ``ALL PORTS FULL LOAD'' test > is done, if you have 40 ports all being sent data at 100MB/sec that > data is going to have to come out on 40 ports someplace, so you only need > 4Gbit/sec of backplane to do this. Thats 4G bytes of data in, 4G > accross the backplane, and 4G back out of the box. > > Maybe a drawing would help: > > rxpair of port 1 > +---------+ > txpair of port n > rxpair of port 2 > | | .... > rxpair of port 3 > | Fabric | > txpair of port 3 > ... | | > txpair of port 2 > rxpair of port n > +---------+ > txpair of port 1 > > As you can see the Fabric only has to handle 40 x 100Mb/s to > keep all 40 ports busy at full duplex. > > The 3.8 Gb/s spec comes up a little short, but only buy 2 ports... > and it had better be darned efficent as far as overhead goes... > > Allowing the port cards to short circuit bridge (and every switch > chip set I have looked at does this) makes it easy to pass this > test, infact you can do it with 0 load on the backplane. My > drawing above tends to put the maximal load on a switches backplane, > but unless the vendor tells you exactly how they tested the benchmark > is like any other benchmark without all the nitty gritty details, > total sales and marketing propoganda. That's what I said to Chris, only I said it a little nicer. I have to, since I'm part of that industry. ;^) To paraphrase Mark Twain: "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and benchmarks." On the OS4024 we were discussing, it wouldn't matter which port pairs you picked, because they're all on the same NI - the 4024 is basically a single Network Interface built into a shruken chassis. If the traffic is all in the same VLAN, it will only get to the "backplane" once, to the source learning process. After that, the packets will always be switched on the NI. Performance then becomes a matter of efficient buffering. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://softweyr.com/ wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message