Comments on: Nexus 5000 & Nexus 2000: New technology requires new thinking http://bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/ Studies in Data Center Networking, Virtualization, Computing Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:21:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Chris Stand http://bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-802 Chris Stand Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:20:11 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=801#comment-802 Livio, If you need storage over ethernet and don't yet have support for fcoe in your storage or server products take a look at a recent VMware document on Exchange performance using iSCSI and NFS - http://blogs.vmware.com/performance/2009/07/exchange-performs-well-using-fibre-channel-iscsi-and-nfs-on-vsphere.html The testing used generic Intel nics vs dedicated fiber HBAs and showed iSCSI and NFS ( our interest is iSCSI which unlike FC CAN be port channeled and run over distance greater than FCOE distance limit of 300m) to be very close in performance. If the testing had used hardware iSCSI adapters it likely would have beaten native Fiber Channel. From your postings ... the N5K & FEXes don't seem to be candidates your environment - a couple of 3750Gs would probably be ideal and they could handle limited ethernet over IP in whatever fashion you needed now. Livio,

If you need storage over ethernet and don’t yet have support for fcoe in your storage or server products take a look at a recent VMware document on Exchange performance using iSCSI and NFS – http://blogs.vmware.com/performance/2009/07/exchange-performs-well-using-fibre-channel-iscsi-and-nfs-on-vsphere.html

The testing used generic Intel nics vs dedicated fiber HBAs and showed iSCSI and NFS ( our interest is iSCSI which unlike FC CAN be port channeled and run over distance greater than FCOE distance limit of 300m) to be very close in performance. If the testing had used hardware iSCSI adapters it likely would have beaten native Fiber Channel.

From your postings … the N5K & FEXes don’t seem to be candidates your environment – a couple of 3750Gs would probably be ideal and they could handle limited ethernet over IP in whatever fashion you needed now.

]]> By: Livio http://bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-700 Livio Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:15:06 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=801#comment-700 Well, Can't I make "the cloud" with traditional switches (4948 for example)? As I've said before, my only concern is that I'll loose A LOT of access ports on Nexus 5000 that could be used by servers with 10GE/FCoE. Again, the only reasons you are giving me to use this design is "management facility" and vPC. So, putting it in a balance I see more losses than benefits. What's the big problem on connecting to another device to manage it? Is this really a big loss? It'll take 5 minutes more to make a service. I don't think that this is the best benefit of this design. I would really appreciate to have all switches of the same series managed by the same program (cisco DCNM), unfortunally I think we are going the other way. Loosing 20 access interfaces, isn't a good option for me... I'm not talking about a huge datacenter. I will only need 10 1G switch for the next years, so "big L2 domain" for me isn't to much trouble. If you could explain better this problem maybe I change my mind... I'm expecting that 10G(with FCoE on some cases) will dominate the servers design, so my loss will be huge. I'll maintain 1Gbps only for backward compatibility (10 years? hehehe). If Nexux 2000 could be attached directly to an Nexus 7000 (it is not quite difficult to make that works) the deisgn would perfect fit for our needs... I'll send this to the list too. By the way, Nice blog. []'s Well,

Can’t I make “the cloud” with traditional switches (4948 for example)? As I’ve said before, my only concern is that I’ll loose A LOT of access ports on Nexus 5000 that could be used by servers with 10GE/FCoE. Again, the only reasons you are giving me to use this design is “management facility” and vPC.

So, putting it in a balance I see more losses than benefits. What’s the big problem on connecting to another device to manage it? Is this really a big loss? It’ll take 5 minutes more to make a service. I don’t think that this is the best benefit of this design. I would really appreciate to have all switches of the same series managed by the same program (cisco DCNM), unfortunally I think we are going the other way. Loosing 20 access interfaces, isn’t a good option for me…

I’m not talking about a huge datacenter. I will only need 10 1G switch for the next years, so “big L2 domain” for me isn’t to much trouble. If you could explain better this problem maybe I change my mind…

I’m expecting that 10G(with FCoE on some cases) will dominate the servers design, so my loss will be huge. I’ll maintain 1Gbps only for backward compatibility (10 years? hehehe).

If Nexux 2000 could be attached directly to an Nexus 7000 (it is not quite difficult to make that works) the deisgn would perfect fit for our needs…

I’ll send this to the list too.

By the way,
Nice blog.
[]’s

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-693 Brad Hedlund Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:43:27 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=801#comment-693 Brian, I hear you loud and clear. The Catalyst 4900M's small form factor and high performance fits nicely as the 10GE L3 switch aggregating the Nexus 5000's in these small footprint environments. Cheers, Brad Brian,
I hear you loud and clear. The Catalyst 4900M’s small form factor and high performance fits nicely as the 10GE L3 switch aggregating the Nexus 5000’s in these small footprint environments.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Brian Landers http://bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-692 Brian Landers Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:16:29 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=801#comment-692 My only real problem with the Nexus 5000+2000 combo is that it doesn't seem to map very well to smaller data centers. I'd *love* to do top-of-rack N2K's with N5K aggregation, but I don't *need* a N7K (and can't justify one) when the data center only has 16 cabinets and a single DS3 WAN circuit. With the N5K unable to do inter-VLAN L3 switching, I'm in a bind. My only real problem with the Nexus 5000+2000 combo is that it doesn’t seem to map very well to smaller data centers. I’d *love* to do top-of-rack N2K’s with N5K aggregation, but I don’t *need* a N7K (and can’t justify one) when the data center only has 16 cabinets and a single DS3 WAN circuit. With the N5K unable to do inter-VLAN L3 switching, I’m in a bind.

]]>