[Beowulf] Re: switching capacity terminology confusion
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Rahul Nabar rpnabar at gmail.comThu Sep 17 06:08:39 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: switching capacity terminology confusion
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: switching capacity terminology confusion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Gerry Creager <gerry.creager at tamu.edu> wrote: > silicon, if I recall correctly. I've several S50s in my data center, hammer > the fool out of them, and am happy. Thanks Gerry! I have been getting many great reviews on Force10. Maybe I will seriously consider them. >Prior to them, we used Foundry > EdgeIron1G switches for our gigabit-connected clusters. They worked well. > For our newer gigabit-connected cluster we went with the HP 5412zl, and > have been happy. > > I'd not recommend cheap switches: They can bite you if you go too cheap and > result in poor MPI and I/O performance. On the other end of the spectrum is Cisco. Their gear seems at such a huge $$ premium with respect to the other vendors and when I ask why the best answer I get is "Cisco is the market leader in switches". They won't show me which of their parameters make a Cisco switch better than the rest. -- Rahul
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Re: switching capacity terminology confusion
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: switching capacity terminology confusion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
