The New QLogic (ANCR) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QLogic (ANCR)

QLGC 16.07

0.0%

Aug 24 5:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Craig Stevenson who wrote (13120)	12/11/1997 11:19:00 AM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (3) of 29386

Craig, I think the concepts are the same - if you are comparing 2048 byte vs. 512 byte FC or FC to ATM. The trade-off will be an increasing percentage of overhead per frame for the smaller frames/packets and this will decrease throughput. As I demonstrated earlier, either FC frame size gives you less overhead/frame than ATM: Message 2875794 I think it is interesting that ATM is more complex than FC to set up and run. You certainly get that impression from some of the ATM manufacturers and the seminar series on the technical aspects of ATM. I also do not have a good idea of current ATM latency figures and how that affects network congestion. Here is a cuurent spec sheet from a leading ATM manufacturer on their state-of-the-art switch (1.5 to 622 Mbps/port): fore.com They don't talk about latency, but a "switch transit delay" of 10 - 12 microseconds. All these technical factors aside, the bottom line is the same - Ancor needs to sell these switches. If you go to the "VLAN" link on the above page and read the bottom line, you can see what they are up against. Clearly many people think ATM is the only show in town.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next