We get upwards of a 60% performance gain when
using jumbos for encapsulating fiberchannel onto ethernet. Clustering and
storage are our main performance gains when using jumbos.
-Adam
From: Mike Bennett [mailto:mjbennett@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006
1:25 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for
Consideration: Jumbo Frames
Joel Goergen wrote:
Mike,
My preference is to associate this with MAC objectives. In past meetings
where this has been addressed, the atmosphere was 'tense'. Thus best to
get the debate over with asap and move on.
agreed.
I don't know at this point how to address your question. I suspect that
since 'all' of us support jumbos and we are inter-operable, that there is a
compelling argument to spec it but not change it.
that sounds reasonable. I just don't want to see this
degenerate into trying to spec 1MB max frame size, auto-negotiation of max
framesize, etc.
Both my position and that of the customers I deal with is that higher speeds,
10gbps included, is more efficient with the larger packets.
no argument from me on this one, although the actual
efficiency gained comparing 1.5 K frames to 9 K frames is only ~ 2%, but when
you're on the cutting/bleeding edge of technology, every bit counts.
Mike
-joel
Mike Bennett wrote:
Joel,
Wouldn't jumbos be something better addressed separately? How do we deal
with backwards compatibility?
Mike
Joel Goergen wrote:
All,
If I go to any search engine and input "jumbo ethernet frames chips",
I will see that every system and silicon vendor supports jumbo ethernet frames.
My question is not wether to support jumbos, because we all already do ... my
question is should we finally spec it out? I think we should, at a
minimum, provision for it.
-joel
--
Michael J. Bennett
Sr. Network Engineer
LBLnet Services Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Tel. 510.486.7913