Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Michael.Balasko at cityofhenderson

Nov 9, 2009, 9:56 AM

Post #26 of 32 (625 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

I too can vouch for the 5K's not being ready for prime time.
Here is a short list of the "advanced" features we are trying to use-
-Disable the HTTP/HTTPS server onboard
-NTP Authentication
-ACL's for SNMP access
-VTY ACL's
-VTP passthrough - VTP packets WILL NOT pass through this switch.
Please save the VTY argument is bad for someone else.

As far as the Cisco litmus test of "it forwards packets so it's working
as designed" it operates fine, but until the above mention issues are
fixed, we can't in good conscience roll them into production to find the
real bugs.

We have piles of TAC cases open for this and we have screamed loud
enough to be in direct contact with the 5K business unit product
manager. The official answer is hurry up and wait. In order to fix these
Cisco bugs we bought a pair of Brocade Turboiron 24's which are now our
only non-Cisco piece of kit out of over 400 devices.

All that being said we bought the 5K's to do 10G distribution for our
core so your mileage may vary depending on needs.
If it were done again right this second, I'd look at Arista Networks. We
demo'd their gear way back and was impressed with the support folks and
the willingness to respond to issues by cutting code instead of
providing a workaround of "none" or "don't use that feature".
They couldn't do RPVST+ at the time and that's why we looked elsewhere.
They say to do it today and based on some of the folks I know work there
I'm inclined to believe them.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Brian Landers
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 7:34 AM
To: Andrew White
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

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.
_______________________________________________
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/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 10, 2009, 6:47 AM

Post #27 of 32 (599 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

On Tuesday 10 November 2009 01:56:07 am Michael Balasko
wrote:

> All that being said we bought the 5K's to do 10G
> distribution for our core so your mileage may vary
> depending on needs.

To digress a little, we considered using the Nexus 5000 as a
10Gbps core aggregation switch, because it's way cheaper
than the WS-X6704/8 line cards.

But given that we'd be looking at adding more bandwidth in
terms of N x 10Gbps, it made more sense to consider boxes
that will scale to native 40Gbps and 100Gbps Ethernet
interfaces.

But, if a network is sure they'll never need anymore 10Gbps
port density or large bandwidth to serve several
downstream/upstream routers, the Nexus 5000 is definitely
good value for 10Gbps Ethernet aggregation, current software
issues aside, of course.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

cisco-nsp at slepicka

Nov 10, 2009, 9:54 AM

Post #28 of 32 (598 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

You can read about the architecture here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/white_paper_c11-462176.html

I'll give you my understanding of it -- I appreciate any corrections if
I miss the mark on something.

>>I don't know whether the packets are buffered on input or on output.
Both. Each port has a set of 416 virtual output queues (on the 5020 --
don't know if this is true for the 5010 or if there are half as many). A
VOQ is, essentially, a queue for each egress port. In other words, on
ingress, a packet is put into one of 416 queues (52 egress ports * 8
queues -- one for each 802.1p CoS). Congestion on one egress port
doesn't impact traffic destined for other ports.

Internally, the packets are moved around at greater than 10Gb speed
(+20%), so there is egress buffering as well. This allows multiple
packets to be queued up and sent out at 10Gb rate without interruption
and is also used for flow control buffering.

>>per-port buffers...quite a bit smaller than on other products
480KB per port shared between per-CoS ingress and egress buffers. Most
are assigned to ingress, but I don't know the ratio.

There is also buffering on the fabric itself, though I'm not entirely
sure what its impact is in this scenario (I think it's primarily just
used as an optimization to increase throughput).

James

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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/
_______________________________________________
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 10, 2009, 11:16 PM

Post #29 of 32 (589 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz [at] npumail> wrote:
>> 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.
>

Well i'm not to sure on the better value point - I doubt it will be
long before netapp and the likes pop a fcoe cna into their kit.
Current prices of gen-2 cna's are not really any more expensive than a
dual port 10ge card so why wouldn't you go fcoe?

No ip, no tcp windows, no need to chew cpu on hosts no managing authentication

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

I don't think it would make much difference really, 5k will have less
latency not that it really matters for 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/

arne.svennevik at met

Nov 11, 2009, 12:59 AM

Post #30 of 32 (590 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

----- "Nick Hilliard" <nick [at] inex> 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.

Looking at the specs an alternative would be a central 5010 and two 2148 FEX as top-of-rack 1G. Using up to 40 of the 1G ports and 4 x 10G for uplink to N5K would make it line-rate, right? Has anyone got any experiences with this setup?

Arne
_______________________________________________
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/

jim at tgasolutions

Nov 12, 2009, 8:16 PM

Post #31 of 32 (562 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

It is on the price list. $5300..
I have on in production and one on order for a customer..
Nice switch...

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Brian Landers
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

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/
_______________________________________________
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/

wim.holemans at UA

Nov 12, 2009, 11:15 PM

Post #32 of 32 (562 views)
Permalink

Re: 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN [In reply to]

What version of IOS does it run ? Base version or lite version ?

Wim Holemans
Network Services
University of Antwerp

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Jim McBurnett
Sent: vrijdag 13 november 2009 5:17
To: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists; Brian Landers
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

It is on the price list. $5300..
I have on in production and one on order for a customer..
Nice switch...

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark
- Lists
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Brian Landers
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN

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/
_______________________________________________
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/

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads