[c-nsp] 2960 -> 4948 - no more drops :)

Reuben Farrelly reuben-cisco-nsp at reub.net
Tue Feb 19 01:29:28 EST 2013

On 19/02/2013 9:21 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
>> This is a classic example of when a Gig port in name is not a Gig port
>> in throughput, ie it may link up at that speed but you'd be lucky to get
>> the rated throughput in all but ideal circumstances.
> Funny thing is that many lower end switches (i.e. cheaper) have better
> buffer characteristics than a 2960 or similar. And even though the 2960
> is cheap compared to other high end switches it isn't compared to
> gigabit switches in general.

Notwithstanding that this is a Cisco list, is this limited buffer 
problem something common to many other vendor's lower end switches too? 
  Do switches from vendor J, Mikrotik and HP also have a similar problem?

It's obviously used as a differentiator of high and low end switches for 
Cisco, but I've often wondered if it's used as a deliberate "cripple" to 
the kit, surely it can't be THAT hard and expensive to engineer 
increased shared buffer space in a low end chassis from 12M to, say 60M?

(As an example, I'm especially looking at differences like those between 
the ME3600 and ME3800, the ME3600X has 44M of buffer and the ME3800 has 
352M, and it's double the list price but otherwise is almost identical; 
at $job-1 I had to explain why I wanted an ME3800 vs an ME3600 for a POP 
when the buffer size was the only difference).


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list