4 ms·

>"A single 24port switch with 1Gbps ports would see 48Gbps so with 64byte packets would see 71M packets, 1518byte packets would drop to 3.9M packets." This is

>"A single 24port switch with 1Gbps ports would see 48Gbps so with 64byte packets would see 71M packets, 1518byte packets would drop to 3.9M packets." This is not correct. An interface doesn't handle more packets per second with smaller packet sizes it handles less, much less. Getting the full 48 Gbps of 24 ports at line rate would only be possible if the packets were full size packets(1500 bytes). The PPS bottleneck with small packets(64 bytes) would mean you would never see line rate on those 24 interfaces as your throughput would fall off a cliff. Network hardware vendors quote PPS using the lower bound of packet size and line rate at full packet size. The PPS bottleneck on a network device is incurred long before the line rate limit is ever reached.

moremetadata 4y ago
The min network packet size is 64 bytes, so if they are bundling several small packets into one pseudo jumbo packet and handling it that way, something only using the same manufacturer switch could do as this would be propriety networking, then that could explain their calculations on their webpage. The data is streamed within time slots, which is why cable lengths of Cat<=5 cable can not be longer than 100 metres @ 100Hz. Cat 6 is 55metres at 250Hz. I dont know what their switch internal workings are, you'll have to ask them why they have quoted that speed, but I know some switches also have built in fibre network connections, as invariably with a network switch with many ports, you could get a queue of packets for one port so there must be some sort of buffering inside a switch to handle and minimise these situations. It is only "clockwork" electrical pulses at the end of the day.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  This is all complete gibberish. Packets per second is based on the lower bound and Jumbo Frames denotes an MTU or upper bound. Further switches don't aggregate smaller Ethernet frames into Jumbo frames. Packet per second also has zero to do with an Ethernet cable's length. PPS is the "forwarding rate" of the switch which is distinct from the bandwidth of a switch's backplane or switching fabric. Again switching bandwidth and forwarding Bandwidth are two different things. There is also no need for me to "ask them why they have quoted that speed", that's standard with hardware vendors for PPS.

moremetadata 4y ago

The min network packet size is 64 bytes, so if they are bundling several small packets into one pseudo jumbo packet and handling it that way, something only using the same manufacturer switch could do as this would be propriety networking, then that could explain their calculations on their webpage. The data is streamed within time slots, which is why cable lengths of Cat<=5 cable can not be longer than 100 metres @ 100Hz. Cat 6 is 55metres at 250Hz. I dont know what their switch internal workings are, you'll have to ask them why they have quoted that speed, but I know some switches also have built in fibre network connections, as invariably with a network switch with many ports, you could get a queue of packets for one port so there must be some sort of buffering inside a switch to handle and minimise these situations. It is only "clockwork" electrical pulses at the end of the day.

bogomipz 4y ago
This is all complete gibberish. Packets per second is based on the lower bound and Jumbo Frames denotes an MTU or upper bound. Further switches don't aggregate smaller Ethernet frames into Jumbo frames. Packet per second also has zero to do with an Ethernet cable's length. PPS is the "forwarding rate" of the switch which is distinct from the bandwidth of a switch's backplane or switching fabric. Again switching bandwidth and forwarding Bandwidth are two different things. There is also no need for me to "ask them why they have quoted that speed", that's standard with hardware vendors for PPS.