[c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer

[Livio Zanol Puppim]

Correcting my last e-mail:
Actually, It's a new datacenter for existing servers and at the same time it
must support new applications.

Christopher,
We are planning to use only Fiber Optics, no twinax cables. Also, I can't
use 10G/FCoE at Nexus 7000. But you have a good argument.

2010/2/12 <Christopher.Marget at usc-bt.com>

> Given the pricing, I'd be more concerned about "losing ports" on the Nexus
> 7000 than on the 5000.
>
>
> A modest Nexus 7010 (two sups, four 32-port cards, two power supplies, LAN
> software license) lists for just under US$400,000 using bundle pricing.
>
> That gets you 128 10Gb/s ports, oversubscribed 4:1.
>
> So, US$3125 per port (US$12,500 per non-blocking port).
>
> Those ports don't support the inexpensive twinax cables, so add another
> US$3,600 to put SR optics on both ends of each link.
>
> The Nexus 5000 OTOH lists for about US$40,000 (dual power 5020 with 40
> ports and base license).  US$1,000 per non-blocking port.  And these ports
> support the twinax cables ($150-$250 / cable)
>
> With optics (on both ends), N7K: $6,700 to $15,100 per port.
> With twinax cables, N5K: $1,200 per port.
>
> And the N5K pricing gets even better when you price the bundle option with
> 6 2148Ts, optics and twinax cables.
>
> If you have a requirement for several hundred 1Gb/s ports with no
> oversubscription through the core, then the 5K might not be any help.
>
> /chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Livio Zanol Puppim
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: Tony Varriale
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer
>
> Ok...
>
> Let's try again, more simplyfied.
>
> Using a DC topology with Nexus family, I must have, for gigabit
> connectivity, Nexus 2000 -> Nexus 5000 -> Nexus 7000.
>
> Using traditional way I can have Catalyst 4948 -> Nexus 7000, saving 10G
> ports from Nexus 5000 for access.
>
> That's my only problem, loosing ports com 5000... Is it clear enought?
>
> Can you give me a good reason to use the first design?
>
> 2010/2/12 Tony Varriale <tvarriale at comcast.net>
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Livio Zanol Puppim" <
> >> livio.zanol.puppim at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Jason Plank" <jmplank at gmail.com>
> >> Cc: "Cisco NSP ((E-mail))'" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:18 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer
> >>
> >>
> >  Brad,
> >>
> >> Can't I make "the cloud" with traditional switches (4948 for example)?
> >>
> >
> > You can call it what you'd like.
> >
> >
> >  As I've said before, my only concern is that I'll loose A LOT of access
> >> ports
> >> on Nexus 5000 that could be used by servers with 10GE/FCoE.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, maybe I missed something.  What are you trying to do?  High density 1
> > gig?  5k does that (with 2k).  Cheap and layer 2 high density 10g?  5k
> does
> > that.
> >
> >
> >  I'm expecting that 10G(with FCoE) will dominate the servers design, so
> my
> >> loss will be huge.
> >>
> >
> > It will be a large part of the future, no doubt.  Your loss?
> >
> >
> >  f Nexux 2000 could be attached directly to an Nexus 7000 (it is not
> quite
> >> dfficult to make that works) the deisgn would perfect fit for our needs.
> >>
> >
> > As I've stated before, there is no if.  Not sure how many more times I
> have
> > to say it...
> >
> > tv
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> []'s
>
> Lívio Zanol Puppim
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



-- 
[]'s

Lívio Zanol Puppim