Two key advantages: - Technical: FCoE, vPC - Management: you needn't to manage N2Ks
R/ Manu On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Livio Zanol Puppim < livio.zanol.pup...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, You are right. > > But I would like to use my nexus 5000 10GE/FCoE ports just for access > servers, maximizing it's use... The uplinks from Nexus 2000 could easially > go directly to my distribution/core. Unfortunally, nexus 2000 is just an > fabric extender and can ONLY be attached to Nexus 5000... Maybe CISCO > changes it's later... > > Let's think: > > 10 nexus 2000 using all uplink ports = 40 ports. Yes, 40 ports that I must > use at my nexus 5000. That's more than 1 entirelly switch (1RU) and almost > 1 > switch (2RU). > > I haven't figure out yet what's the advantage of having this design (nexus > 2000 -> nexus 5000) other than the "old" one (catalyst 4948 -> nexus > 7000/cisco 6500). That's what I'm talking about. > > The only REAL advantage so far is the vPC... > > 2010/2/2 Brad Hedlund <brhed...@cisco.com> > > > > > True, the Nexus 2000 does not locally switch, but lets explore that for a > > second... > > > > 1) a typical enterprise Data Center is running applications that are not > > latency sensitive, where latencies in the 10s of microseconds are > perfectly > > OK and nobody is really counting anyway. Only in the small minority of > Data > > Centers running high frequency trading, grid computing, or some other > ultra > > low latency application, every *nanosecond* matters and local switching > with > > fewer hops is of paramount importance. Furthermore, these applications > are > > quickly migrating away from 1GE to 10GE attached servers for the obvious > low > > latency advantages. > > > > 2) the Nexus 2000 has 4x10GE uplink bandwidth versus the 2x10GE uplink > for > > 4948. This results in a possible 1:1.2 oversubscription ratio for Nexus > > 2000 to handle the additional uplink load that may otherwise not be > present > > on a 4948. > > > > 3) The upstream Nexus 5000 implements cut-through switching, and the > Nexus > > 2000 itself also uses cut-through for frames entering on 1GE and > egressing > > on 10GE. The two combined often results in port-to-port latencies > similar > > to a Catalyst 6500, even without the "local switching". If you are > > comfortable with your Catalyst 6500 local switching latencies, you can > > expect similar performance from a Nexus 2000/5000 combination. > > > > > > -- > > Brad Hedlund, CCIE #5530 > > Consulting Systems Engineer, Data Center > > bhedl...@cisco.com > > http://www.internetworkexpert.org > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2010, at 5:25 PM, David Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > On 29/01/2010, at 6:54 AM, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote: > > > > > >> Can anyone please tell me the advantages of using Nexus 2000 over > > Catalyst > > >> 4948 as access layers switches? > > >> Using Nexus 2000, I have to use at least 2 ports at my Nexus 5000, > that > > >> could be used by servers with 10GbE/FCoE servers. > > > > > > The N2K does no local switching so if you have any east-west traffic > > between ports on the same switch you'll be better served by a more > > "traditional" access switch. Naturally the N2K offers centralised > > management etc etc but that may or may not be of interest depending on > the > > size of your deployment. > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > ... > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > > -- > []'s > > LĂvio Zanol Puppim > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/