Any gigabit ethernet switches...

[spidey07]

too bad.

If you give up on jumbo frames you give up on all the advantages of jumbo frames.

any nic that doesn't support 9K jumbo frames should not be in a computer IMHO.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: skyking
the normal MTU or frame size is 1500.
by increasing the frame size to 9000, you can transfer data faster. Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used.

Quite misleading. Without jumbo frames, I can get 75+ MB/s, which you can only do over gigabit, not over fast ethernet which would be around 10 MB/s.

What will jumbo frames give me? 85+ MB/s? I don't know; guess I could find out if I find 2 jumbo-compatible NIC's.

Most people would have a hard time getting their drives to go anywhere near 75+ MB/s, so telling them that "Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used" is pretty much telling them they need something that they can't get much benefit from IMO.

 

[NaiMan]

damn, all this time i thought gigabit means transfering 1gig per second...

then again, i am a big n00b!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: NaiMan
damn, all this time i thought gigabit means transfering 1gig per second...

then again, i am a big n00b!

It does run at 1000 Mbs or 1 gigabit per second.

But most times the computers can't keep up.

 

[letstalkcisco]

Originally posted by: skyking
the normal MTU or frame size is 1500.
by increasing the frame size to 9000, you can transfer data faster. Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. The maximum size of an ethernet frame is 1522Kbps, except when you're using tagging (.1q or ISL) you'll get up to a whopping 1526 for .1q and 1548 for ISL. If your server is communicating using ethernet then you do not need to worry about jumbo frames.

The only time jumbo frames are used is in fiberchannel connections. This is for SANs (Storage Area Networks) that are upwards of $100K and in the hundreds of terabytes and much much higher range. Again, this is a special protocol and a separate thing from standard ethernet which I'm pretty damn sure is what you're talking about.

SkyKing -- where did you come up with that answer anyways???

 

[letstalkcisco]

Originally posted by: goku
I've currently got a 10/100Mb/s HUB yes, thats right hub, hooked up to 3 computers+another HUB (not sure if it's in hub or switch mode) which is hooked up to 2 more computers. I access my server quite often and I want to be able to transfer files to and fro as if I'm accessing the file locally. The server is only a 10 feet away from the workstation so there isn't really an excuse for this not to be possible. I've got GIGe in my workstation and the server so I'm pretty much set.

So my proposed solution is just to get a 10/100 multiport switch. Sounds like a 12 port would work just fine. You will have a faster network as you won't have to deal with the data collisions you get with a hub environment, and every device will be "local" since they're all going to be on the same subnet to communicate with each other. GigE is fine, but you probably won't come close to filling it with less than 10 devices, even if one or two are servers. I didn't have a chance to click on the product links that folks are posting, but anything in this category should do you just fine for a long time.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: letstalkcisco

Originally posted by: skyking
the normal MTU or frame size is 1500.
by increasing the frame size to 9000, you can transfer data faster. Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. The maximum size of an ethernet frame is 1522Kbps, except when you're using tagging (.1q or ISL) you'll get up to a whopping 1526 for .1q and 1548 for ISL. If your server is communicating using ethernet then you do not need to worry about jumbo frames.

The only time jumbo frames are used is in fiberchannel connections. This is for SANs (Storage Area Networks) that are upwards of $100K and in the hundreds of terabytes and much much higher range. Again, this is a special protocol and a separate thing from standard ethernet which I'm pretty damn sure is what you're talking about.

SkyKing -- where did you come up with that answer anyways???

That is the standard answer when talking about gigabit ethernet. Jumbo frames allow for less TCP overhead on the sending/receiving end and allow more data to be transmitted with each packet = higher throughput.

It is used all the time on gigabit ethernet networks.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: skyking
the normal MTU or frame size is 1500.
by increasing the frame size to 9000, you can transfer data faster. Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used.

Quite misleading. Without jumbo frames, I can get 75+ MB/s, which you can only do over gigabit, not over fast ethernet which would be around 10 MB/s.

What will jumbo frames give me? 85+ MB/s? I don't know; guess I could find out if I find 2 jumbo-compatible NIC's.

Most people would have a hard time getting their drives to go anywhere near 75+ MB/s, so telling them that "Gigabit networks really only move data at gigabit speeds when jumbo frames are used" is pretty much telling them they need something that they can't get much benefit from IMO.

Here is a link to a shootout among 13 different gigabit network adapters on the same platform, with various tests, and several frame sizes.
The interesting thing to note is CPU load. It seems the CPU load and throughput are typically minimized/maximized at the 9k frame.


http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gig...-64bit/gig-eth-64bit-apr2004-p2-2.html

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: skyking
The fact is, jumbo frames do make a difference or they would not be an option on copper gigE.

It's not an option to me on the copper gigE that I have here, so your argument isn't all that solid. And I don't claim that jumbo frames wouldn't give me a performance improvement -- I certainly hope they would. It just isn't practical for me as a consumer at this point to try to do the vendors' work for them -- establishing compatible jumbo frame support throughout all the equipment. It would mean literally replacing all but one or two of my networking gear, and also a couple of MB's if I was to take the bandwidth argument alone seriously.

I think this discussion would be better directed towards the manufacturers, starting with nVIDIA for example, to get their act straight and produce equipment with a working set of compatible jumbo frame settings, and not directed towards consumers, who as I've illustrated, have a hard time getting compatible goods, or even information regarding that before purchase. And it's also impractical for me as a home consumer to start acting like a corporation to standardize on some particular probably never optimally/consumer-priced gear and sit on that standard, ignoring the diverse other needs and interests that come by.

But if you have a solution to that that doesn't include "Cisco" or something like that, I'd be happy to at least hear about it.

 

[nweaver]

Swtich to Intel, they have (imho) the best NIC's in the biz. And why the cisco hate? I realize they are impractical for home use, unless you do strange things...

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: nweaver
why the cisco hate?

No Cisco hate.

I realize they are impractical for home use, unless you do strange things...

That's the point.

Sadly, on the Intel suggestion, I might have to confess to something approaching hate. I did x86 assembler programming for a couple of years, and don't think I've managed to completely forgive Intel (or IBM - PC) for their design and choice respectively yet. But thanks for the info

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: skyking
The fact is, jumbo frames do make a difference or they would not be an option on copper gigE.

It's not an option to me on the copper gigE that I have here, so your argument isn't all that solid. And I don't claim that jumbo frames wouldn't give me a performance improvement -- I certainly hope they would. It just isn't practical for me as a consumer at this point to try to do the vendors' work for them -- establishing compatible jumbo frame support throughout all the equipment. It would mean literally replacing all but one or two of my networking gear, and also a couple of MB's if I was to take the bandwidth argument alone seriously.

I think this discussion would be better directed towards the manufacturers, starting with nVIDIA for example, to get their act straight and produce equipment with a working set of compatible jumbo frame settings, and not directed towards consumers, who as I've illustrated, have a hard time getting compatible goods, or even information regarding that before purchase. And it's also impractical for me as a home consumer to start acting like a corporation to standardize on some particular probably never optimally/consumer-priced gear and sit on that standard, ignoring the diverse other needs and interests that come by.

But if you have a solution to that that doesn't include "Cisco" or something like that, I'd be happy to at least hear about it.

Please take no offense to my post as i am about to "fly off the handle" Thank you in advance.

Any and all "true" network gear supports jumbo frames. Most if not all commercial gear does.

This is what we do. We move packets in the most efficient means possible. That means "we" take advantage of jumbo frames. That's the job of a plumber - to move as much as possible as fast as possible while minimizing bottlenecks.

I honestly find it very laughable of some of the PC review sites posting the crap that they do without a real understanding of communications. And quite frankly it pisses me off that these PC freaks that have no comprehension of data communications continue to publish the utter crap that they do. Tinkering with settings without an understanding of what is actually occuring on the wire is severly lacking in knowledge - f'in PC guys that have no idea what they are talking about. This kind of misinformation without understanding needs to stop.

I'll end by simply saying that commercial gear does not suffer the handicapping that SOHO gear does. And it doesn't matter if that commercial gear is from the big 4 (cisco, foundry, extreme, nortel)

If you want commercial performance/features then you pay for it. Otherwise you deal with SOHO stuff.

/end rant

I remember paying 16,000 dollars for a finicky 10/100 layer2 switch back in 1997. We should be thankfull that the equivalent costs less than a few hundred bucks today.

-edit- grammar

-edit2- and it really ticks me off the way the PC review sites test thing when it comes to networking. they have no clue what they are doing......literallly. that's why they will always wank on their "networking" tests, and still have no idea what they are talking about....all without access or knowledge of testing methology. Really, it irks me. Sorry.

 

[nweaver]

You asked for a suggestion, intel (imho, or nsho some days) makes the best cards period. Wired and wireless (wireless might be debatable, with Atheros based stuff). Their network adapters never give me grief. I almost always put an old intel pro 100 in onboard boxes, as I hate what is on the mobo (Broadcom usually, these days).

Really, pony up for an intel card or don'twhine about not getting the speeds you want.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: nweaver
You asked for a suggestion, intel (imho, or nsho some days) makes the best cards period. Wired and wireless (wireless might be debatable, with Atheros based stuff). Their network adapters never give me grief. I almost always put an old intel pro 100 in onboard boxes, as I hate what is on the mobo (Broadcom usually, these days).

Really, pony up for an intel card or don'twhine about not getting the speeds you want.

Really, a suggestion, not an order, thanks.

I'm not whining about performance. What I'm saying is that jumbo frames is not a practical requirement for the home user due to incompatibility among vendors. Moreover, its presence is not the be all and end all of gigabit networking. There's plenty of bandwidth to be enjoyed with just plain gigabit as an improvement over fast ethernet, and at next to no incremental cost, that's exactly what I want.

If, in a year or two, jumbo frames are well supported at a standard size, I'll change my position and say that those who do not support it are to be shunned. However, that's not a position that's practical at home atm.

A corporate environment is different. If I was spending someone else's money and had the time and ability to dictate the connecting hardware, etc., then I'd probably adopt the strong jumbo frames position there, and moreover find it easier to maintain.

 

[Madwand1]

OK, I see that Intel Pro 1000 NIC's are generally available, and some of them are inexpensive. Most of them are PCI though, and that'd be what's needed for some installations -- it remains to be seen for me whether a jumbo-frame capable NIC that saturates a PCI bus would perform as well or better than a MB-embedded non jumbo-frame device. But if there is not much other traffic on the PCI, then it might be viable, and at least let other machines which don't have this limitation utilize jumbo frames.

I'll take this as a viable option to evalutate further. Thanks.

 

[letstalkcisco]

Last jumbo frame message from me: I understand that its part of gigE spec and that you can have switching devices not drop the frames if they support jumbo, but the fact remains that you need a source and a destination in a network, and neither device will be transmitting ANY jumbo frames. Therefore jumbo frame support shouldn't be a deciding factor in a home office solution.

I work with mostly cisco gear but some foundry. I named myself letstalkcisco more cause i've been studying for the tests rather than a proclomation of the greatness of cisco necessarily.

 

[imported_anvil82]

So what is a good switch that supports Jumbo frames!!

Thanks.