On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:30:23AM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:08:55AM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0800, nate wrote:
> > >
> > > 10GbE is really cheap these days(cheaper than 1GbE in some cases
> > > on a per Gb basis) if you need faster performance, and simple
> > > to configure, I wrote a blog on this a couple of months ago:
> > >
> > > http://www.techopsguys.com/2009/11/17/affordable-10gbe-has-arrived/
> > >
> >
> > This reminded me of something. I remember reading some website
> > (possibly Cisco's) earlier, and they mentioned 10 GBASE-T had
> > much higher latency than other 10 Gbit options.
> >
> > Have you paid attention to this? How big is the difference nowadays?
> > Or I wonder if it was just on some specific product..
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet says:
> >
> > "10GBASE-T has higher latency and consumes more power than other 10
> > gigabit Ethernet physical layers. In 2008 10GBASE-T silicon is now
> > available from several manufacturers with claimed power dissipation
> > of 6W and a latency approaching 1 microsecond"
> >
> > 1 microsecond doesn't sound bad.. :)
> >
>
> http://www.bladenetwork.net/userfiles/file/PDFs/WP_10GbE_Cabling_Options_091016.pdf
>
> That PDF claims this:
>
> 10GBase-T:
> - latency 2.6 us
> - power per port: 4-6W/port
> - price per port: $400
> - max distance: 100m
>
> 10 Gbit SFP+:
> - latency 0.3 us
> - power per port: 1.5W
> - price per port: $40
> - max distance: 8.5m
>
And well, both of those are much better than with gigabit ethernet, so I
guess one shouldn't pay too much attention to that.
-- Pasi
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
