flow control on gig networks
I'm setting up full flow control on my hosts (sun boxes) for both sending and receiving. I have 2 Cisco Catalyst 3550 switches that are connected together. Should flow control on the ports that connect the two switches together be configured the same as the ports that are connected to the hosts?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Re: flow control on gig networks
To answer your question susinctly: No, you should not use flow-control
between the two switches. It was not intended to be used for end-to-end
HOWEVER: You may want to re-think your descision to use flow control at
Flow Control was originally invented to prevent packet drops by
switches that were running at less than media-speed.
The problem Ethernet flow control is intended to solve is input buffer
congestion on oversubscribed full duplex links which cannot handle
Ethernet flow control is not intended to solve the problem of
steady-state overloaded networks or links.
An example of where Ethernet flow control might be used appropriately
is at the edge of a network where Gigabit Ethernet attached servers are
operating at less than wirespeed, and the link only needs to be paused
for a short time, typically measured in microseconds. The use of Pause
frames to manage this situation may be appropriate under such
Unfortunately, Ethernet flow control is commonly misunderstood. It is
not intended to address lack of network capacity, or end-to-end network
issues. Properly used, Ethernet flow control can be a useful tool to
address short term overloads on a single link.
It will also "break" any QoS you may have set up for the hosts
|All times are GMT. The time now is 03:49 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.