Full-Duplex Communication [7:47562]

[Cisco Breaker]

Full-Duplex Communication
You can select half-duplex or full-duplex communication. The advantage of
using full-duplex is that communication packets can flow in both directions
simultaneously, which results in doubling the throughput capacity on the
segment.

Full-duplex communication eliminates the performance degradation resulting
from packet collisions. Packets cannot collide because they each travel on
their own path--like cars going in opposite directions on a two-lane
highway. So while the effective bandwidth to a 10BaseT port configured for
half-duplex Ethernet is a maximum of 10 Mbps, with full-duplex Ethernet it
is doubled to 20 Mbps.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3ks/3000/acopspcs.htm

Catalyst 5000 Series
Supervisor II engine ports on 10/100 ports on Fast EtherChannel-capable line
cards enable high-speed connectivity between switches, switches and routers,
and switches and servers. Up to four Fast Ethernet ports can be grouped to
provide up to 800 Mbps of load-sharing, redundant, and point-to-point
connections between the Catalyst 5500, 5509, 5505, 5002, and 5000 switches.
To achieve higher bandwidth, Gigabit EtherChannel can be deployed, which
supports up to 8 Gbps (full-duplex) of inter-switch bandwidth, and is
supported across the Catalyst 5000 Family.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/ca5000.htm

If  I connect a server to a swtich full duplex then if only one client
connected with its gig eth card, he can't use 2 gigs. I think they are
writing these manuals incorrectly. Cause you can use 1 gig for sending 1 gig
for receiving. Not 2 gigs sending and receiving. If you say to a customer
that with gig ether channel they can reach up to 8 gigs on 6500 swithes he
will obviously thinks that he can send 8 gig and receive 8 gig not 4 gig RX
for gig TX.

Best regards,

Cisco Breaker




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47562&t=47562
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Full-Duplex Communication [7:47562]

[Michael Williams]

Cisco Breaker wrote:
> If  I connect a server to a swtich full duplex then if only one
> client
> connected with its gig eth card, he can't use 2 gigs. I think
> they are
> writing these manuals incorrectly. Cause you can use 1 gig for
> sending 1 gig
> for receiving. Not 2 gigs sending and receiving.

I wouldn't say they're writing the manuals incorrectly.  If anything, I
think they've made it clear that you have the rated bandwidth of the link
available in each direction.

> If you say to
> a customer
> that with gig ether channel they can reach up to 8 gigs on 6500
> swithes he
> will obviously thinks that he can send 8 gig and receive 8 gig
> not 4 gig RX
> for gig TX.


If you say to a customer that with did etherchannel they can reach up to 8
gigs in each direction, then you would be at fault for misrepresenting the
technology.  If you say that you can reach 8 gigs in total bandwidth, then
that would be a true statement.  But as the other person said, people that
use this everyday know what it means, and it's up to us to make sure the
customer knows what it means.

Mike W.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47568&t=47562
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Full-Duplex Communication [7:47562]

[Chris Charlebois]

That is a marketing issue, not a technical one.  The people who work with
switches everyday understand that when you are talking about full-duplex
bandwidth, it's split between up and down.  It's up to us to educate the
decision-makers and end-users, rather than muddle with the marketese.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47567&t=47562
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]