RE: Jumbo frame

Hi,

I would like to share my throughput point of view:

The overhead of 1518 byte frames is 2.63%
The overhead of 9126 byte frames is 0.43%

The throughput of your link is 250 Mbit/s, or 31.25 MB/s. The use of jumbo frames on this link saves you about 687 KB/s, or 5.5 Mbit/s.
[calcualation: 2.63 - 0.4 = 2.2 overhead saved by using jumboframes. 31,25 * 0,022 = 0,6875 KB

This calculation shows the difference between 1518 byte frames and jumbo frames. If you calculate the savings on hourly basis you can save 2.4GB per hour.

Best regards,
Henk

Met vriendelijke groet,
With kind regards,

Henk de Tombe
senior network engineer

Qi ict

Delftechpark 35-37
Postbus 402, 2600 AK Delft

T : +31 15 888 0 444
F : +31 15 888 0 445
E : mailto:henk.de.Tombe_at_qi.nl
I : http://www.qi.nl

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] Namens Cikekhuah
Verzonden: 21 August, 2013 18:46
Aan: Christopher Rae
CC: Rati Berikaant Jokhadze; Cisco certification
Onderwerp: Re: Jumbo frame

Thanks all for your valuable contributions

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Christopher Rae <chris.rae07_at_me.com> wrote:

> Remember it is just adding support for jumbo frames. Devices that use
> 1500 byte packets it will continue to forward them with a 1500 frame.
> If you have ISCI SAN replication between the sites then jumbo makes
> sense as the SAN storage will be configured for 9000 byte packets.
> If you dont have a requirement, then I would suggest to leave it at default.
> If your worried about a performance hit on the 6k, I wouldn't worry
> about it, but just double check that each line card supports jumbo frames.
>
> On a slight tangent.....make sure your WAN provider can support it, end to end between your sites.
> If he doesnt and you send him jumbo's, they will fragment.
>
> Cheers
> Chris Rae
>
> On 21/08/2013, at 8:59 PM, Rati Berikaant Jokhadze <iinfo83_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Its depends on the what is a purpose of wan link , you are using it for internet or mpls or something like this.
>> i mean if you have l2 connectivity , bcause jumbo frame is l2 technology.
>>
>> if transit devices supports jumbo frames , this will not be a problem.
>> And applications that using 1500mtu doesn't impact.
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2013 04:50 PM, Cikekhuah wrote:
>>> Thanks Rati,
>>>
>>> What mtu value would you recommend on the 250mb wan interface? 9126 is from 1gb interface, is same advisable on this interface and how does it impact applications on servers using 1500mtu transiting the same link.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Rati Berikaant Jokhadze <iinfo83_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the transit devices supports jumbo frames , then it makes sense
>>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2013 04:30 PM, Cikekhuah wrote:
>>>>> Hello colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a 1GB network infrastructure but would like to know the impact of configuring Jumbo frame support on my 250MB WAN link to my DRC site having Cisco 6509 switches at both locations. The link is terminated on 1GB interfaces but has 250MB capacity. I learnt it's advisable to configure 9126 mtu for 1gb but less for any value below this. Was wondering the best value to set for my scenario and the possible impact this could have on my other applications transiting this link but using 1500 mtu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>> _____ Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> __ Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Aug 22 2013 - 14:39:50 ART