Be wary of Gig to the desktop in Windows boxes. In most cases, PC class (non-64/66 PCI) simply can't handle it. On top of that, as Howard mentioned, the server has to be a screamer or it won't be able to keep up with the GigE either. You can get better performance with a *nix box, but if it's Intel based, it will still (sweeping generality here) suffer throughput issues. A few notes from some GigE Windows work I've done in the past.
Try to move big files rather than lots of little ones. Go for Jumbo Frames. TCP Window size is tuneable in W2K. Tune it. More Memory. On a Compaq DL380 I saw best performance/$ at about the 2GB RAM mark. 3GB of RAM was better, but only a skosh. Lots of cache, and LOTS of hard drives. It is better to have 20 18Gig drives than 10 36 Gig drives for SPEED. Spindles mean things. It may be a good time to think fibre channel. 64/66 minimum for your RAID controllers. PCI-X is even better. Don't bother with the built in RAID controllers in most servers - they are fairly lame. Pay attention to your cables. Bad fiber installs or so so copper will kill your performance. Sit back and enjoy the blinkie lights. TTFN, Bill Pearch, Anchorage AK -----Original Message----- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467] At 12:02 PM +0000 7/10/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Gig to the desktop would be overkill. You have to make a decision on >were to place your bottleneck, and adjust interface speed accordingly. > >We have a very similar setup with Cat 6000, Cat 4000, and Cat 3000's. >We determined that 100MP to the desktop would suffice any current >requirement. > From the application standpoint, this is a sort-of "it depends." Let me throw out some off-the-top-of-my-head examples. A digitized mammogram series is about 250 MBytes, or 2 Gbits. It contains several views, so the physician doesn't need it all at once. If the workstation has a fast local disk, you should be able to retrieve the set in about 20 seconds on FE. The image server may very well be the bottleneck. Once you have the set, flipping from image to image is a workstation limitation. But if you were going to do high-resolution imagery with motion (movie special effects, real-time cardiac MRI, etc.), you have to deliver frames fast enough to have smooth motion. Now, the physician is not apt to decide he or she is going to study the imagery with no warning, so scheduling an upload isn't all that unreasonable. If you did want RIGHT NOW full motion imagery, you very well might want GB or even faster to the workstation. That's going to mean a pretty powerful workstation! > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kim Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:28 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467] > > >We currently have 4006's SupII in our closets and they have no trouble >handling the traffic (240 ports). If you want to go IOS you can move up to >the SupIII engine on this unit. They interface with our 6513's via gig >uplinks and to date we have not had any issues with the 4006's or the >gig uplinks. > >Personally I like them, but others may have varying opinions. > >Kim > > >> >> From: "Michael Williams" >> Date: 2002/07/10 Wed AM 12:41:15 EDT >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467] >> >> We are going to setup some closets in hospitals for radiology to >> transfer large images across. They want gig to the desktop.... If >> we have 20-30 computers/printers connected with Cat5E gig to a 4000 >> will that be too much? I'm thinking it won't overwhelm the >> backplane unless all devices >are >> cranking gig at once (which I've yet to hear of a PC or printer that >> can actually handle Gig .....) >> >> What would be the best recommendation for Sups? Sup1, 2 or 3? We >> don't need L3 at that level as each 4000 would uplink (via Gig) to a >> 6500 for L3..... >> >> We could do 6506 in the closet for the Cat5 gig modules are >> expensive and only have 16 ports per blade where the 4000 modules >> have 48 ports of 10/100/1000 for the Cat5 and are cheaper.... >> >> Thanks for any input.... >> >> Mike W. [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48714&t=48467 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
