Start a Conversation

This post is more than 5 years old

Solved!

Go to Solution

643

April 15th, 2009 12:00

ISL standards

Are these reasonable arguments to make:

On the core switches,
-Consider ISLs on 12-port or 24-port blades compared to 48-port blades on a core switch?
-Instead of dedicating couple of line cards for ISLs,distribute them from where the storage ports connected so that request doesn't need go through the back plane?
-Also using 48-port on the core,each port is only giving 1Gb? so each edge switch needs to have more connections to achieve the kind of bandwidth a 4gb port provide.

Or Using 48-port is fine to expand to many edge switches?

141 Posts

November 28th, 2017 07:00

Hi there,

In our effort s to clean up the forum, we came across your question / statement.

If the question / statement is still valid, not expired and you need an update please reach out again and we try to get it answered.

As for now we set it to “answered.”

Regards,

Jim

2 Intern

 • 

5.7K Posts

April 16th, 2009 05:00

An ISL needs DEDICATED bandwidth, so on a 48 port blade you could have as many as 48 1Gb ISL's, or 24 ISL's working on 2Gb and 24 unusable ports.

The 48 port blade is meant for host connectivity. Some ISL's on the blade are fine, but I wouldn't buy a 48 or a 24 port blade just for ISL's because each ISL takes up DEDICATED bandwidth.

40 Posts

May 11th, 2009 11:00

The amount of bandwidth allocated to a blade varies by switch(DCX has a ridiculous amount of BW per blade, 256Gb IIRC), but each blade will have a max bandwidth that it can handle. I would not reccomend putting them on a single blade for that reason and for the fact that the blade in question would turn into a single point of failure for that fabric if it fails. You would be better off distributing ISLs evenly over blades just as you would storage ports.
No Events found!

Top