When network switches report speeds of say 100 Mbit or 1 Gbit, are they referring to the maximum speed per Ethernet port or is this the physical limit of the switch on all ports? Say for example two users on a network are simultaneously transferring large files, will they be contending against each other for the 100 Mbit or 1 Gbit, or will they each attain these maximum transfer rates?
Networking – Are Switch Data Transfer Speed Limits Per Port or Per Device?
bandwidthnetworkingswitch
Related Solutions
Most of the slowness comes from the HD bottleneck. Your average HD will push 40-50mb across a network on a completely idle disk/system/network. Add-in the overheads of dd into a simply tcp netcat pipe which is in no way optimised for network traffic, and the speeds begin to drop way off.
Most of the slow down comes from TCP window size. Packet goes across and has to wait for a reply before sending the next. Usually an internal network has such low latency that no one ever notices these. When you dump in a non network optimised way of doing it, the windows start to go all over the place. Great example of this was Vistas network file copy in the pre SP1 version which gave transfer speeds on less than 100kb a second when the TCP window tuning got it very wrong.
Also for reference, I've two boxes here than consistently push 60-80 meg a second through their network to easy other. They do have dedicated NICs, RAID 10 and a bunch of 10000RPM SAS drives to give this kind of speed.
Yes. Using single cables to "cascade" multiple Ethernet switches together does create bottlenecks. Whether or not those bottlenecks are actually causing poor performance, however, can only be determined by monitoring the traffic on those links. (You really should be monitoring your per-port traffic statistics. This is yet one more reason why that's a good idea.)
An Ethernet switch has a limited, but typically very large, internal bandwidth to perform its work within. This is referred to as the switching fabric bandwidth and can be quite large, today, on even very low-end gigabit Ethernet switches (a Dell PowerConnect 6248, for example, has a 184 Gbps switching fabric). Keeping traffic flowing between ports on the same switch typically means (with modern 24 and 48 port Ethernet switches) that the switch itself will not "block" frames flowing at full wire speed between connected devices.
Invariably, though, you'll need more ports than a single switch can provide.
When you cascade (or, as some would say, "heap") switches with crossover cables you're not extending the switching fabric from the switches into each other. You're certainly connecting the switches, and traffic will flow, but only at the bandwidth provided by the ports connecting the switches. If there's more traffic that needs to flow from one switch to another than the single connection cable can support frames will be dropped.
Stacking connectors are typically used to provide higher speed switch-to-switch interconnects. In this way you can connect multiple switches with a much less restrictive switch-to-switch bandwidth limitatation. (Using the Dell PowerConnect 6200 series again as an example, their stack connections are limited in length to under .5 meters, but operate at 40Gbps). This still doesn't extend the switching fabric, but it typically offers vastly improved performance as compared to a single cascaded connection between switches.
There were some switches (Intel 500 Series 10/100 switches come to mind) that actually extended the switching fabric between switches via stack connectors, but I don't know of any that have such a capability today.
One option that other posters have mentioned is using link aggregation mechanisms to "bond" multiple ports together. This uses more ports on each switch, but can increase switch-to-switch bandwidth. Beware that different link aggregation protocols use different algorithms to "balance" traffic across the links in the aggregation group, and you need to monitor the traffic counters on the individual interfaces in the aggregation group to insure that balancing is really occurring. (Typically some kind of hash of the source / destination addresses is used to achieve a "balancing" effect. This is done so that Ethernet frames arrive in the same order since frames between a single source and destination will always move across the same interfaces, and has the added benefit of not requiring queuing or monitoring of traffic flows on the aggregation group member ports.)
All of this concern about port-to-port switching bandwidth is one argument for using chassis-based switches. All the linecards in, for example, a Cisco Catalyst 6513 switch, share the same switching fabric (though some line cards may, themselves, have an independent fabric). You can jam a lot of ports into that chassis and get more port-to-port bandwidth than you could in a cascaded or even stacked discrete switch configuration.
Best Answer