|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks Sanjeev, I was not aware that PCIe Gen2 has gone 32 lanes wide. Will this demand a new connector?
Peter is right here. PCIe 2.0 goes upto 160 Gbps.
Brad "only mentioned" x8 and x16 lane configurations There is x32 lane
configuration too. And with 5Gbps it is 160 Gbps.
Regrading overhead, even with 25% overhead you get 120 Gbps throughput. This is by no means a 100GE bottleneck. Now, could a processor/memory system fill such a pipe is a separate discussion, but then I have my doubts about the 40GE too.
Since PCIe spec. is subscriber only I can't post the spec. here.
On 4/10/07, Vandoorn, Schelto <email@example.com> wrote:
I don't believe your PCIe Gen2 statement is correct. See Brad Booth's reply on an earlier thread regarding the even faster following Gen3.
PCIe gen 3 is expected to be 10 Gbps. The calculation would be 8 Gbps (unencoded data) * 8 (more typical lane count) * 75% (PCIe efficiency) = 48 Gbps. A 16 lane PCIe host bus would be able to handle about 96 Gbps which would be close to the maximum line rate of 100 GbE.
While the host bus may be able to handle that bandwidth, the CPU and memory will lag that bandwidth capability. Therefore, 40 GbE is probably sufficient for most servers over the 5-10 years.
I also agree with Donn's comments.
I additionally don't see the overwhelming need for 40Gbps to the server
a. The newly created PCI Express v2.0 standard already has a max data
rate in excess of 100Gbps
b. There is a trend in the thread that is concerned about the additional
complexities of dual purposed hardware and software, and the distraction
of a dual standard.
c. Web video on demand applications have NIC input/output ratios in
excess of 50:1 versus approximately 10:1 for traditional HTML. On the
surface 40Gbps would seem sufficient, but it doesn't account for the
viral proliferation of video.
My primary concern is the backbone capacities of the ISPs closely
followed by the aggregate Web capacity of server farms. LAG for servers
is an acceptable compromise.
If a dual standard is to be pursued for servers, instead of 40Gbps, I'd
rather see 100Gbps interfaces clocked down to 50 Gbps (using inverse mux
hardware?) as a driver configuration option.
100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: donnlee [mailto:donnlee@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
As an end-user who presented to the HSSG along with other end-users
that 100GE is too late, I feel like our urgency and pain has fallen on
deaf ears when I see messages like those below. Does the IEEE want
end-user input or not?
To reiterate for those who did not hear the end-user presentations:
a. 10GE pipe is too small. We have hit the LAG & ECMP ceilings of 10GE
b. We have to use multiple 10GE LAGs and build a Clos network to keep
up with traffic demands. This results in a ridiculous number of cables
and an operational nightmare. 100GE links would greatly exorcize and
scale our networks. See "A Web Company's View on Ethernet", HSSG,
c. If 10GE LAGs have grown to nightmare-ish size today, imagine what
additional pent-up demand will be added between now and 2010?
d. The largest 10GE switch commercially available today is too small.
We would like much larger switches but because of (b), we really
require 100GE switches. See "Saturating 100G and 1T Pipes", HSSG,
e. When 100GE is available in 2010, we will have to LAG them on Day
One because a single 100GE will be too small.
f. I had no idea 10GE was a "failure" or "too early" until I visited
an IEEE meeting. As far as we're concerned, we can't buy enough of it.
Problem we have is the 10GE boxes do not have enough 10GE interfaces.
We need more; a lot more.
g. As 100GE is late, many of us are working with vendors who have
PRE-STANDARD 100GE plans. Because the need is so great, I have no
problems building a fabric of proprietary links as long as the links
on the outer edges of the fabric are standard.
Network Architecture Team