This may be ignorant and please correct if I am off base but given the same physical medium isn't sending 2k across the network the same cost whether you are at fastE or gigE? Given the network is not saturated?
fastE is 100Mbits/sec, gigE is 1000Mbits/sec, so given the same size packet, gigE is in theory 10x faster.
However, to make things work over copper I believe that gigE has a larger minimum packet size so it's not quite apples to apples on pings (latency).
For bandwidth, the max size (w/o non-standard jumbo grams), is the same, around 1500 bytes, and gigE is pretty much linear, you can do 120MB/sec over gigE (and I have many times) but only 12MB/sec over fastE.
Some day I need to do a post about what I learned from SGI's numa interconnect. I used to think big packets are good, that interconnect taught me that bigger is not better.
If I have 1000Mbits to send then gigE is 10 times faster. But in the article we are transferring only 2k across the network. Mixing latency and bandwidth here. The latency to send 2k across an empty network isn't 10 times greater on a fastE versus gigE network, right?
luckydude|13 years ago
However, to make things work over copper I believe that gigE has a larger minimum packet size so it's not quite apples to apples on pings (latency).
For bandwidth, the max size (w/o non-standard jumbo grams), is the same, around 1500 bytes, and gigE is pretty much linear, you can do 120MB/sec over gigE (and I have many times) but only 12MB/sec over fastE.
luckydude|13 years ago
Getahobby|13 years ago