On 13/Aug/20 13:00, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > you could easily have 10% utilization and see packet loss due to > insufficient bandwidth if you have egress << ingress and > proportionally low buffering, e.g. UDP or iSCSI from a 40G/100 port > with egress to a low-buffer 1G port. > > This sort of thing is less likely in the imix world, but it can easily > happen with high capacity CDN nodes injecting content where the > receiving port is small and subject to bursty traffic. Indeed. The smaller the capacity gets toward egress, the closer you are getting to an end-user, in most cases. End-user link upgrades will always be the weakest link in the chain, as the incentive is more on their side than you, their provider. Your final egress port buffer sizing notwithstanding, of course. Mark.
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Simon Leinen
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Etienne-Victor Depasquale
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Daniel
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Ted Hatfield
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Olav Kvittem via NANOG
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Nick Hilliard
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Olav Kvittem via NANOG
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrad... Baldur Norddahl
- Re: Bottlenecks and link u... Mike Hammett
- Re: Bottlenecks and li... Baldur Norddahl
- Re: Bottlenecks and link u... Tom Beecher
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Radu-Adrian Feurdean
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Mark Tinka
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Tom Beecher
- Re: Bottlenecks and link upgrades Etienne-Victor Depasquale