Re: 10GE TOR port buffers (was Re: 10G switch recommendaton)

[bas <kilobit () gmail com>]

While I agree _again_!!!!!

It does not explain why TOR boxes have little buffers and chassis box
have many.....

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:36 PM, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> wrote:
> > Buffers in most network gear is bad, don't do it.
>
> +1
>
> I'm amazed at how many will spend money on switches with more buffering but won't take steps to ease the congestion.  
> Part of the reason is trying to convince non-technical people that packet loss in and of itself doesn't have to be a 
> bad thing, that it allows applications to adapt to network conditions.  They can use tools to see packet loss, that 
> gives them something to complain about.  They don't know how to interpret jitter or understand what impact that has 
> on their applications.  They just know that they can run some placket blaster and see a packet dropped and want that 
> to go away, so we end up in "every packet is precious" mode.
>
> They would rather have a download that starts and stops and starts and stops rather than have one that progresses 
> smoothly from start to finish and trying to explain to them that performance is "bursty" because nobody wants to 
> allow a packet to be dropped sails right over their heads.
>
> They'll accept crappy performance with no packet loss before they will accept better overall performance with an 
> occasional packet lost.
>
> If an applications is truly intolerant of packet loss, then you need to address the congestion, not get bigger 
> buffers.