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. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48489&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
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. -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. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48490&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
If you go with the 4000 the supIII is going to give you much more performance, forwarding 48Mpps as opposed to 18 with the supI and II and if you ever decide you want layer 3 it's ready. I definately wouldn't invest in gig interfaces on a 5500. Dave Michael Williams wrote: > > 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. -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48498&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
We invested in GigE interfaces for one of our 5500's. Good investment at that. It's needed for migrating to a 6500... ;-) >>> "MADMAN" 07/10/02 07:25AM >>> If you go with the 4000 the supIII is going to give you much more performance, forwarding 48Mpps as opposed to 18 with the supI and II and if you ever decide you want layer 3 it's ready. I definately wouldn't invest in gig interfaces on a 5500. Dave [snip] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48504&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
Well, part of it is Layer 10 (politics). Although I have yet to hear/read about a end device (Server/PC/printer) that can actually handle a full 1Gbps, part of the way this radiology system works is that images are transferred from a centralized storage facility to a local server, then the clients (connected to the same switch) pull the images from the server for display, so they wanted Gigabit for the clients and server so that it couldn't be said that the bottleneck is the network. As far as accessing the rest of our LAN, yeah, the bottleneck is going to be the Gig uplink from the 4006s to the 6500s in the core that building. Furthermore, if they are accessing anything (applications/data) from our main data center, the WAN (100Mbps) would be the bottleneck. So it really just depends on what the end client is accessing to determine where the bottleneck is and with Gig the the desktop (which again, I haven't seen/heard/read about a PC and/or server that can truly drive Gigabit to the full 1Gbps), we know the network won't be the bottleneck for these clients pulling and viewing images from their local server. Mike W. [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. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48511&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
Assuming the computers are Intel & Microsoft based, there's little chance, IMHO, that you'll even over-subscribe 100M links for each device. Going Gig should be no problem. If you go with the 4006, check out this link, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/techno/lnty/etty/ggetty/prodlit/1092_pp. htm. It's a nice document that describes the speeds and feeds of the various 4006 blades. Jeffrey Reed Classic Networking, Inc. Cell 717-805-5536 Office 717-737-8586 FAX 717-737-0290 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Williams Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:41 AM 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. Confidential e-mail for addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original communication. 1 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48491&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
At 12:02 PM + 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. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48524&t=48467 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions on 4000 -vs- 6500 [7:48467]
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 + 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]
