Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

  

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Cisco nsp RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jasongurtz at npumail

Nov 6, 2009, 6:34 AM

Post #1 of 32 (2337 views)
Permalink
3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting
the 3750G for top of the rack. From looking at specs/marketing material,
it seems like two Nexus 5010 at top of rack would be a better choice in
this application. Generally, comments seem pretty good as long as advanced
features aren't needed.

Is Nexus that much more expensive that no one is quoting it? or is it more
for FCoE? Or is the 3750G just "good enough?" Or no one has the
experience to quote?

~JasonG

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jeff-kell at utc

Nov 6, 2009, 6:54 AM

Post #2 of 32 (2293 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Jason Gurtz wrote:
> We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting
> the 3750G for top of the rack.

We have one iSCSI array on a 4948 (another alternative).

Jeff
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


Karen.Young35 at t-mobile

Nov 6, 2009, 9:36 AM

Post #3 of 32 (2287 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers. Also, the cli isn't really complete yet and there are a number of missing commands that make management and troubleshooting more difficult than it really should be.

To be honest, I feel like we're being used as guinea pigs for beta testing. Its been one d [at] m thing after another. Personally, I don't think its really ready for full scale production yet.

ky

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:jasongurtz [at] npumail]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:34 AM
To: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting the 3750G for top of the rack. From looking at specs/marketing material, it seems like two Nexus 5010 at top of rack would be a better choice in this application. Generally, comments seem pretty good as long as advanced features aren't needed.

Is Nexus that much more expensive that no one is quoting it? or is it more for FCoE? Or is the 3750G just "good enough?" Or no one has the experience to quote?

~JasonG


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jmplank at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 10:05 AM

Post #4 of 32 (2288 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Hello,

I would love if you could elaborate on some of the problems that you
are having. Why can you not form port-channels with HP blade servers?
I would also like you to explain what management and troubleshooting
issues you have had.

You've made some pretty hefty accusations here and Nexus is in several
large production environments at this point. Not to say that the
platform aren't perfect, but I'd really like to understand some of the
technical issues and short comings you have experienced.

Jason

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Young, Karen
<Karen.Young35 [at] t-mobile> wrote:
> Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers. Also, the cli isn't really complete yet and there are a number of missing commands that make management and troubleshooting more difficult than it really should be.
>
> To be honest, I feel like we're being used as guinea pigs for beta testing. Its been one d [at] m thing after another. Personally, I don't think its really ready for full scale production yet.
>
> ky
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:jasongurtz [at] npumail]
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:34 AM
> To: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
>
> We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting the 3750G for top of the rack.  From looking at specs/marketing material, it seems like two Nexus 5010 at top of rack would be a better choice in this application. Generally, comments seem pretty good as long as advanced features aren't needed.
>
> Is Nexus that much more expensive that no one is quoting it? or is it more for FCoE?  Or is the 3750G just "good enough?"  Or no one has the experience to quote?
>
> ~JasonG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



--
--
Jason Plank
(CCIE #16560)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


nick at inex

Nov 6, 2009, 11:06 AM

Post #5 of 32 (2292 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
On 06/11/2009 14:34, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> Is Nexus that much more expensive that no one is quoting it? or is it more
> for FCoE? Or is the 3750G just "good enough?" Or no one has the
> experience to quote?

N5010 is a 10G switch; the 3750G is a 1G switch, so it's probably not
surprising that it's more expensive.

Incidentally, if you're planning to use the N5K as a fancy 1G switch, note
that the system will change the switching mode from cut-through to
store-n-forward for GE ports; cut-through is only supported for 10G
transceivers. This may matter for iSCSI.

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jasongurtz at npumail

Nov 6, 2009, 11:26 AM

Post #6 of 32 (2284 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
> Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some
> really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just
> stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-
> stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers.

Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish
experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number
of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for
redundancy.

Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're
wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber.

There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks like
that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are
pushing the MDS9124 box.

Thanks for the responses so far.

~JasonG
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jasongurtz at npumail

Nov 6, 2009, 11:26 AM

Post #7 of 32 (2284 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
> Incidentally, if you're planning to use the N5K as a fancy 1G switch,
> note
> that the system will change the switching mode from cut-through to
> store-n-forward for GE ports; cut-through is only supported for 10G
> transceivers. This may matter for iSCSI.

Thanks for that, I had been wondering about the 1G situation.

~JasonG
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


CFlint at mt

Nov 6, 2009, 11:34 AM

Post #8 of 32 (2287 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Hi Jason,

I'd second the recommendation for a 4948 instead of a 3750E. The 3750E has issues pushing large flows of traffic that the 4948 doesn't have. From what I've seen on the list, the 3750E is built to be a fast desktop aggregation switch, and the 4948 is built for server aggregation.

Also, the Nexus 5010's only offer 8 ports of 1G or 10G, and the rest are 10G only.



Chris


===============================
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:54:33 -0500
From: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell [at] utc>
To: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
Message-ID: <4AF438A9.7030800 [at] utc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Jason Gurtz wrote:
> We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting
> the 3750G for top of the rack.

We have one iSCSI array on a 4948 (another alternative).

Jeff

===========================
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:34:22 -0500
From: "Jason Gurtz" <jasongurtz [at] npumail>
To: <cisco-nsp [at] puck>
Subject: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
Message-ID:
<A92EAF652EC423438D55C14C60771C8701C32148 [at] exchgsrv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

We're looking to build a SAN, probably iSCSI and everyone keeps quoting
the 3750G for top of the rack. From looking at specs/marketing material,
it seems like two Nexus 5010 at top of rack would be a better choice in
this application. Generally, comments seem pretty good as long as advanced
features aren't needed.

Is Nexus that much more expensive that no one is quoting it? or is it more
for FCoE? Or is the 3750G just "good enough?" Or no one has the
experience to quote?

~JasonG



_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jmplank at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 11:40 AM

Post #9 of 32 (2285 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Also, there are caveats with the N5K's. Only certain ports can be used
for 1G connectivity. For instance, on the 5020 only the first 16 ports
can be used.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz [at] npumail> wrote:
>
>
>> Incidentally, if you're planning to use the N5K as a fancy 1G switch,
>> note
>> that the system will change the switching mode from cut-through to
>> store-n-forward for GE ports; cut-through is only supported for 10G
>> transceivers.  This may matter for iSCSI.
>
> Thanks for that, I had been wondering about the 1G situation.
>
> ~JasonG
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



--
--
Jason Plank
(CCIE #16560)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


nick at inex

Nov 6, 2009, 12:21 PM

Post #10 of 32 (2280 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
On 06/11/2009 19:40, Jason Plank wrote:
> Also, there are caveats with the N5K's. Only certain ports can be used
> for 1G connectivity. For instance, on the 5020 only the first 16 ports
> can be used.

and on a 5010, only the first 8 ports.

Nick

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


gert at greenie

Nov 6, 2009, 1:35 PM

Post #11 of 32 (2278 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Hi,

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 07:06:53PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Incidentally, if you're planning to use the N5K as a fancy 1G switch, note
> that the system will change the switching mode from cut-through to
> store-n-forward for GE ports; cut-through is only supported for 10G
> transceivers. This may matter for iSCSI.

Out of curiosity: how does it cut-through if it has to multiplex multiple
ports, as in: packets coming in on port A and B and leaving on C? As
soon as two packets overlap (time-wise) on A and B, you can't do
cut-through...

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net


nick at inex

Nov 6, 2009, 1:56 PM

Post #12 of 32 (2283 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
On 06/11/2009 21:35, Gert Doering wrote:
> Out of curiosity: how does it cut-through if it has to multiplex multiple
> ports, as in: packets coming in on port A and B and leaving on C? As
> soon as two packets overlap (time-wise) on A and B, you can't do
> cut-through...

The switch has per-port buffers; from what i remember, quite a bit
smaller than on other products, as the unit is cut-through. You also
need these buffers when you're operating 1G ports in store-n-forward
mode. I don't know whether the packets are buffered on input or on output.

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


philxor at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 2:47 PM

Post #13 of 32 (2273 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
It doesn't, it buffers until there isn't contention, acting like a
store and forward switch.

Phil


On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 07:06:53PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Incidentally, if you're planning to use the N5K as a fancy 1G
>> switch, note
>> that the system will change the switching mode from cut-through to
>> store-n-forward for GE ports; cut-through is only supported for 10G
>> transceivers. This may matter for iSCSI.
>
> Out of curiosity: how does it cut-through if it has to multiplex
> multiple
> ports, as in: packets coming in on port A and B and leaving on C? As
> soon as two packets overlap (time-wise) on A and B, you can't do
> cut-through...
>
> gert
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> //
> www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
> fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


adwhite at inchix

Nov 8, 2009, 3:49 AM

Post #14 of 32 (2255 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :)



On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz [at] npumail> wrote:
>> Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some
>> really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just
>> stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-
>> stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers.
>
> Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish
> experience.  We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number
> of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for
> redundancy.
>
> Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're
> wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber.
>
> There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks like
> that doesn't really make sense in this day and age.  Here, vendors are
> pushing the MDS9124 box.
>
> Thanks for the responses so far.
>
> ~JasonG
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


brian at bluecoat93

Nov 8, 2009, 7:33 AM

Post #15 of 32 (2251 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force
10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective "48 ports of gigE with a
10ge uplink" switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or
two) at the top of every rack in my data center!


On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andrew White <adwhite [at] inchix> wrote:

> Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz [at] npumail>
> wrote:
> >> Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some
> >> really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just
> >> stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-
> >> stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers.
> >
> > Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish
> > experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number
> > of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for
> > redundancy.
> >
> > Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're
> > wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber.
> >
> > There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks
> like
> > that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are
> > pushing the MDS9124 box.
> >
> > Thanks for the responses so far.
> >
> > ~JasonG
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



--
Brian C Landers
http://www.packetslave.com/
CCIE #23115
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


skoal at skoal

Nov 8, 2009, 10:55 PM

Post #16 of 32 (2240 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html

Brian Landers wrote:
> I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force
> 10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
> frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective "48 ports of gigE with a
> 10ge uplink" switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or
> two) at the top of every rack in my data center!
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andrew White <adwhite [at] inchix> wrote:
>
>> Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz [at] npumail>
>> wrote:
>>>> Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some
>>>> really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just
>>>> stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show-
>>>> stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers.
>>> Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish
>>> experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number
>>> of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for
>>> redundancy.
>>>
>>> Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're
>>> wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber.
>>>
>>> There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks
>> like
>>> that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are
>>> pushing the MDS9124 box.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the responses so far.
>>>
>>> ~JasonG
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>
>
>
Attachments: signature.asc (0.25 KB)


gert at greenie

Nov 9, 2009, 1:24 AM

Post #17 of 32 (2235 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
> Did you look at the c2350 also?
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html

The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.

What I can't see from there is:

- does it support flow-control?
- how big and how flexible are its buffers?
(as compared to 2950/2960/3750)
- is there a redundant power suppy option?

gert

--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net


skoal at skoal

Nov 9, 2009, 1:30 AM

Post #18 of 32 (2246 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
>> Did you look at the c2350 also?
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
>
> The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
>
> What I can't see from there is:
>
> - does it support flow-control?
sh int t0/1 flowcontrol
Port Send FlowControl Receive FlowControl RxPause TxPause
admin oper admin oper
--------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------
Te0/1 Unsupp. Unsupp. off off 0 0

> - how big and how flexible are its buffers?
how can i check this from cmd?

> (as compared to 2950/2960/3750)
> - is there a redundant power suppy option?
it has redundant power supply's.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.25 KB)


gert at greenie

Nov 9, 2009, 1:42 AM

Post #19 of 32 (2247 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
> >> Did you look at the c2350 also?
> >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
> >
> > The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
> >
> > What I can't see from there is:
> >
> > - does it support flow-control?
> sh int t0/1 flowcontrol
> Port Send FlowControl Receive FlowControl RxPause TxPause
> admin oper admin oper
> --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------
> Te0/1 Unsupp. Unsupp. off off 0 0

Hmmm. what about the Gig ports?

> > - how big and how flexible are its buffers?
> how can i check this from cmd?

I think you can't. At least on the other switches, I have not yet found
a way to ask the device about its buffer details.

> > (as compared to 2950/2960/3750)
> > - is there a redundant power suppy option?
> it has redundant power supply's.

It has? Cool. (That's not clearly visible from the data sheet).

gert


--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net


skoal at skoal

Nov 9, 2009, 1:51 AM

Post #20 of 32 (2239 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
>>>> Did you look at the c2350 also?
>>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
>>> The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
>>>
>>> What I can't see from there is:
>>>
>>> - does it support flow-control?
>> sh int t0/1 flowcontrol
>> Port Send FlowControl Receive FlowControl RxPause TxPause
>> admin oper admin oper
>> --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------
>> Te0/1 Unsupp. Unsupp. off off 0 0
>
> Hmmm. what about the Gig ports?

the same

>
>>> - how big and how flexible are its buffers?
>> how can i check this from cmd?
>
> I think you can't. At least on the other switches, I have not yet found
> a way to ask the device about its buffer details.
>
>>> (as compared to 2950/2960/3750)
>>> - is there a redundant power suppy option?
>> it has redundant power supply's.
>
> It has? Cool. (That's not clearly visible from the data sheet).

sorry i was misleading you.It has modular power and fan trays,but its
not redundant.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.25 KB)


brian at bluecoat93

Nov 9, 2009, 6:05 AM

Post #21 of 32 (2235 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Gergely Antal <skoal [at] skoal> wrote:

> Did you look at the c2350 also?
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
>
>
Very interesting, indeed. Would be nice to see a POE version as well (to
compete with the Force10 S50V), but as it seems to be positioned
specifically as a data center switch, that doesn't seem likely.

Doesn't appear to be in the pricing tool yet, though?


--
Brian C Landers
http://www.packetslave.com/
CCIE #23115
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


lists at hojmark

Nov 9, 2009, 6:30 AM

Post #22 of 32 (2232 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:05:34 -0500, you wrote:

> [Cat 2350G] Doesn't appear to be in the pricing tool yet, though?

Every order goes on NPH and needs to go through the BU for approval.
Pricing is 'known, but not public'.

-A
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jasongurtz at npumail

Nov 9, 2009, 8:59 AM

Post #23 of 32 (2233 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
> I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the
> Force
> 10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
> frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective "48 ports of gigE with
a
> 10ge uplink" switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or
> two) at the top of every rack in my data center!

Another thing we found when considering 1G w/ 10G uplinks and value is
Fujitsu XG0448.

~JasonG
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


jasongurtz at npumail

Nov 9, 2009, 9:02 AM

Post #24 of 32 (2233 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
> Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :)

It does look like that is what the box is really for. To answer the
question, it all depends on what SAN goes in. A lot of the newer stuff
with better value is iSCSI only and eschews FC in any form.

Maybe I better question to ask is how does the nexus 5k fare against 49xx
switch doing iSCSI?

~JasonG
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


sethm at rollernet

Nov 9, 2009, 9:37 AM

Post #25 of 32 (2233 views)
Permalink
Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]
Brian Landers wrote:
> I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force
> 10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
> frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective "48 ports of gigE with a
> 10ge uplink" switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or
> two) at the top of every rack in my data center!
>

A HP ProCurve 6600-48G-4XG is a bit less and has 4x 10 gig and 48x
10/100/1000 ports. And they actually tell you the packet buffer size in
their spec sheets. Never used this model personally though, but I have
some other HP switches and I've been happy with them. The price
difference and functionally equal (for my needs) that I'd seriously
consider HP if they had complete IPv6 support.

Cisco-nsp seems to be the mot active list of the *-nsp and having this
list as a resource is valuable.

~Seth
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Cisco nsp RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.