HP Procurve maxed out

[Tbirdkid]

Im sure they are built as a 24/48 port for a reason, but is it normal procedure to run a switch maxed out?

 

[spidey07]

Yes, completely normal - you paid for the ports, unless every single port is screaming at full speed all the time then you'd have to look at the architecture of the switch (oversubscription).

 

[cmetz]

What does maxed out mean?

Many older switches can't handle full line rate at minimum packet size load on every port - they just don't have the capacity for the worst case scenario. Cisco, in particular, is notorious for under-engineering their products. In a small to medium enterprise network, that might still be okay, because that case isn't going to happen. When you start talking about large enteprise or carrier networks, you need to be very careful about putting switches in your core that can, absolutely and without gotchas, handle the load.

A desktop PC is a very bursty load. Most of the time, the port is idle. So ports serving desktops can be oversubscribed and it's usually fine.

 

[NickOlsen8390]

I have worked with many HP procurve's at my job (ISP)
and I have one here in my house also (1800-24G)
they all can run balls to the wall all day long no problem.

 

[Cooky]

May I ask which ISP you work for that deploy Procurve switches?
Even HP uses Cisco on some of their networks. (we have an extranet for their remote support, and they use a Cisco router for that purpose)
I met a network architect from HP when I attended last year's Networkers in Orlando...makes you wonder why they'd send him there...

cmetz - you make it sound like Cisco's the only vendor that oversubscribes their switches.
As far as I know everyone's swtiches are oversubscribed, w/ a few exceptions.
Can you recommend some vendors who make switches that are not as oversubscribed as Cisco's?

 

[Gillbot]

I had a Telco Systems 48 port + 2 Gbit fiber uplink running all out at a lan fest and it never skipped a beat.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Cooky
May I ask which ISP you work for that deploy Procurve switches?
Even HP uses Cisco on some of their networks. (we have an extranet for their remote support, and they use a Cisco router for that purpose)
I met a network architect from HP when I attended last year's Networkers in Orlando...makes you wonder why they'd send him there...

cmetz - you make it sound like Cisco's the only vendor that oversubscribes their switches.
As far as I know everyone's swtiches are oversubscribed, w/ a few exceptions.
Can you recommend some vendors who make switches that are not as oversubscribed as Cisco's?

Foundry and extreme come to mind. Cisco is the worst at oversubscribing their switch architecture.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Cooky
May I ask which ISP you work for that deploy Procurve switches?
Even HP uses Cisco on some of their networks. (we have an extranet for their remote support, and they use a Cisco router for that purpose)
I met a network architect from HP when I attended last year's Networkers in Orlando...makes you wonder why they'd send him there...

cmetz - you make it sound like Cisco's the only vendor that oversubscribes their switches.
As far as I know everyone's swtiches are oversubscribed, w/ a few exceptions.
Can you recommend some vendors who make switches that are not as oversubscribed as Cisco's?

Extreme Networks switches are not oversubscribed, unless you specifically order the "oversubscribed" modules for the chassis-based systems.

 

[cmetz]

Extreme's claim to fame back in the day was full line rate performance. I think Foundry did exactly the same. I think they make some low end switches now that really aren't. They've all changed a lot over the years.

Cisco is notorious for under-engineering. However, many of their current-gen switches are fine. I like the 3750 series, for example. As long as you don't turn on too many features at the same time, they deliver on performance just fine and are rock solid so far on reliability. Many of their previous switches (e.g. 2900/3500) had performance issues and reliability issues in my experience.

There's no safe vendor. You have to ask very precise questions, becuase vendors usually try to spin this stuff. One of the main reasons I dislike Cisco is that their sales folks are rarely straight with me, and I have to play 20 questions to extract the answer to what should be a fundamental question of fitness for purpose. Other vendors play the same games, heck, Cisco quite literally wrote the rules in networking and by extension networking sales. Everyone else plays the same games, it's just a matter of degree.

A customer who isn't very experienced can end up buying expensive gear that isn't fit for their purpose. That's not a good thing. It pads the vendors' coffers, but it doesn't make it easier for people to build enterprise networks that work right.