Joseph,
Now I see where the confusion is coming from. You probably
have a box that is a dedicated load balancer (as opposed to a switch
that also does load balancing). In this case, you will most likely
have to provide a L2 switch(es), at least for the server side, as a
part of your benchmarking zone. You can use any switch(es) you like.
We may be able to give you a spare switch from our lab if needed, but
that will not change the reporting side.
In the past, the price for that extra equipment was included
into the total product price, affecting price/performance ratios. In
your case, the price of a simple L2 switch is unlikely to have a
serious affect. Also, the official report will note that customers
that already have necessary gear should adjust price and
price/performance figures accordingly.
The question of Gbit versus 100Mbit cables on client and
server side of the participant zone remains unresolved. IMO, we need
to try to get participant consensus on this issue. However, whatever
the final decision is, I hope we can accommodate low-end entries. Only
few report readers have 10GBit worth of traffic going through their
Web server farm... Our goal is to use a realistic setup that can
accommodate most of the products in a fair fashion.
Alex.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Joseph Mack wrote:
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > > it's a big difference. One cable to the clients and one to
> > > the servers limits you to 100Mbps. An unlimited number of
> > > cables means the sky is the limit. These are two different
> > > categories of L-4 switches.
> >
> > I was thinking one (or a few) Gbit cables versus many 100Mbit cables.
> > I am sure we would have to allow for total throughput that exceeds
> > 100Mbit levels.
>
> I'll be aiming for one box at 100Mbps and possibly another
> in the sub 1Gbps range.
>
> Presumably for the 100Mbps box, I would get one cable to
> the clients and another cable to the servers (and you would
> provide the switch for me to plug into on both sides?).
>
> > The primary difference, IMO, is the number of ports that a switch will
> > be able to use. Different switches have different designs that will
> > benefit (or not) from many ports being utilized given the same total
> > load. I expect some serious fights among vendors before we can reach a
> > consensus or decide to use two hard-to-compare configurations.
>
> If I want to enter something in the sub Gbps range, do
> I have the choice of getting it via either
>
> o single 1Gbps card on client side and server side
> o multiple 100Mbps NICs (eg quad NICs) on each side
>
> I assume this is the problem you are talking about.
>
> (My equipment is 100Mbps and I can increase
> throughput by combining 100Mbps links.
> I don't have switches etc to setup a 1Gbps
> installation.)
>
> Thanks Joe
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 12:00:18 MDT