SE2800 gigabit switch an jumbo frames

Looking at this switch (would have posted this in the switch section but it is archived and there isn't a new one). Does it support jumbo frames?

No, the SE2800 doesn't support Jumbo Frames.

Similar Messages

Linksys SE2800 and jumbo frames

Does the Linksys SE2800 gigabit 8 port switch support jumbo frames? Anyone have this switch? Any issues? Looking to replace a netgear gigabit switch that likes to forget that it has gigabit machines connected to it.

Hi Michael,
Actually had a chat with a colleague at linksys regarding your question, but he referred me to a datasheet, which left me with the question I started with. The technician said yes it suppported Jumbo frames but he could post me nothing in black and white..
Why not look at the Cisco Small Business umnanaged product the SG100D-08. It offers as the datasheet suggets;
Peace of mind:
All Cisco 100 Series switches are protected for the life of the product by the Cisco Limited Lifetime Hardware Warranty
Also, even though an unmanaged product, this series supports such features as;
1. Green Energy—Efficient Technology
The Cisco SG 100D-08 switch supports Green Energy-efficient
Technology. It can enter sleep mode, turn off unused ports, and adjust
power as needed. This increases energy efficiency to help businesses use
less power and save money.
2. Jumbo Frame Support
The Cisco SG 100D-08 switch supports frames up to 9,000 bytes called
jumbo frames. Jumbo Frame support improves network throughput and
reduces CPU utilization during large file transfers, such as multimedia files,
by allowing larger payloads in each packet.
regards Dave

SG 300-28 Switch - Jumbo Frames Problem.

I just got the SG 300-28 28 port switch tonight and got it up and running however, i've encountered a problem regarding jumbo frames. In the documentation and product brochures, it states the SG 300 switches supports jumbo frames up to 10k. When I first setup the switch and enabled jumbo frames, i was getting very slow speeds in my network transfers (800kb/s !!!). All the workstations are running Intel PCIE nic cards with jumbo frames enabled at 9014 bytes. After some troubleshooting, i lowered the frame size to 4088 bytes and everything returned to normal with fast speeds.
I had a suspicion that it might be the switch that is causing the network slowdown with 9k frames; I went ahead and enabled the 9k jumbo frame settings on my NICs again and started to ping other workstations on the network using the "don't fragment" flag. It turns out, the largest packet that i can send out is 8972 bytes. This is a little far from 10k frames that is stated in the documentation and brochures. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that i've stumbled into a bug in switch.
Time for a firmware update?

Hi Dickson C,
Interesting query.. TCP, UDP and ICMP packet overhead are fairly negligible according to the information below i would think about 94 bytes for ethernet plus tcp overhead.
The switch would internally label the ethernet frame to identify what VLAN the frame is in (even Vlan 1), so an extra 4 bytes would be used within the switch for that.
Ethernet frame format:
6 byte dest MAC addr
6 byte src MAC addr
[4 byte optional 802.1q VLAN Tag]
2 byte length/type
46-9014 byte data (payload)
4 byte CRC
Ethernet overhead bytes:
12 byte intergap + 8 preamble + 14 header + 4 trailer = 18 bytes/packet w/o 802.1q
12 byte intergap + 8 preamble + 18 header + 4 trailer = 22 bytes/packet with 802.1q
TCP encapsulated in Ethernet:
Assuming no header compression (e.g. not PPP)
Add 20 IPv4 header or 40 IPv6 header (no options)
Add 20 TCP header
Add 12 bytes optional TCP timestamps
TCP overhead can be 52 bytes
Ethernet + TCP overhead around 52+22 bytes = 74 bytes
Your Intel ethernet NIC supports around 9500-byte, so the datasheets from intel suggest for a jumbo frame , but you have it enabled at 9014 bytes.
So your NIC enabled at 9014 bytes - 74 bytes for Ethernet and TCP packet overhead= approximately 8940 bytes of data.
You say you are getting packet data throughput around 8972 bytes.
Check my maths, I have made a few assumptions. What you reckon, worth a call to the Small Business Support center to double check, please open a case and report back with the results. I really may be way off in some of my assumptions.
regards Dave
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/support/tsd_cisco_small_business_support_center_contacts.html

Jumbo Frames question on SRW series Switches

One of our vendors was saying that on an un vlaned switch, using jumbo frames, if a link to a server that did not use jumbo frames it would disable jumbo frames for the whole switch. Does anyone know if there is there is any truth to that statement?

I don't think so because once you enable jumbo frame on the switch it automatically enable it on all the ports.

Does the WRT310N support jumbo frames?

Greetings one and all.
Does anyone know if the WRT310N Wireless-N Gigabit Router support jumbo frames? I have a Buffalo Linkstation Mini NAS that contains a Gigabit Ethernet card. The NAS can support jumbo frames provided the switch it's connected to has the capability.
Thanks

I did a live sesion with the tech support desk
The WRT320N does have hardware support for Jumbo Frames.
Only on the Firmware (Software Side) it's not enabled yet what can easy be done by the Linksys/Cisco development team.
see PDF broadcom BMC53115
http://www.dutchmans.serverthuis.nl/BCM53115.pdf
(Mod Note: Removed chat script)
Message Edited by daikunzeon on 11-27-2009 10:53 PM

How do I maximize LAN speeds using Gigabit Ethernet, jumbo frames?

I move a lot of large files (RAW photos, music and video) around my internal network, and I'm trying to squeeze out the fastest transfer speeds possible. My question has to do both with decisions about hardware and what settings to use once it's all hooked up.
This is what I have so far:
-- imac 3.06GHz, macbook pro 2.53GHz
-- Cisco gigabit smart switch capable of jumbo frames
-- Buffalo Terastation Duo NAS (network attached storage), also capable of Gbit and jumbo frames
-- All wired up with either cat6 or cat53e.
-- The sizes of the files I'm moving would include large #s of files at either 15MB (photos), 7MB (music), 1-2GB (video) and 650MB (also video).
-- jumbo frames have been enabled in the settings of the macs, the switch and the buffalo HD.
-- I've played with various settings of simultaneous connections (more of a help with smaller files), no real difference
-- Network utility shows the ethernet set to Gbit, with no errors or collisions.
-- have tried both ftp and the finder's drap and drop
-- also, whenever I'm doing a major move of data, I kick my family off the network, so there is no other traffic that should be interfering.
Even with all that, I'm still lucky to get transfer speeds at 15-20mbps, but more commonly at around 10. The other odd thing I've encountered while trying to up my speeds, is that I might start out a transfer at maybe 60mbps, it will maintain that for about 30-60sec and then it appears to ramp itself down, sometimes to as low as 1-5mbps. I'm starting to think my network is mocking me
I also have a dual band (2.4/5) wireless n router (not jumbo frame capable), but I'm assuming wired is going to trump wireless? (NOTE: in my tests, I have disabled wireless to force the connection through the ethernet).
Can anyone help with suggestions, and/or suggest a strong networking reference book with emphasis on mac? I'm willing to invest in additional equipment within reason.
Thanks in advance!
juliana

I'm going to pick and choose to answer just a few of the items you have listed. Hopefully others will address other items.
• This setup was getting me speeds as high as 10-15MB/sec, and as low as 5-6MB/sec when I was transferring video files around 1-2 GB in size
I would think a single large file would get the best sustained transfer rates, as you have less create new file overhead on the destination device. It is disturbing that the large files transfer at a slower rate.
• Would a RAID0 config get me faster write speeds than RAID1? I have another NAS that can do other RAID configs, which is fastest as far as write times?
RAID0 (Striped) is generally faster, as the I/O is spread across 2 disks.
RAID1 is mirrored, so you can not free the buffer until the same data is on BOTH disks. The disks are NOT going to be in rotational sync, so at least one of the disks will have to wait longer for the write sectors to move under the write heads.
But RAID1 gives you redundency. RAID0 has not redundency. And you can NOT switch back and forth between the 2 without reformatting your disks, so if you choose RAID0, you do not get redundency unless you provide your own via a backup device for your NAS.
• what is the most efficient transfer protocol? ftp? smb? something else? And am I better off invoking the protocol from the terminal, or is the overhead of an app-based client negligible?
Test the different transfers using a large file (100's of MB or a GB sized file would be good as a test file).
I've had good file transfers with AFP file sharing, but not knowing anything about your NAS, I do not know if it supports AFP, and if it does, whether it is a good implementation.
If your NAS supports ssh, then I would try scp instead of ftp. scp is like using cp only it works over the network.
If your NAS support rsync, that would be even better, as it has the ability to just copy files that are either NOT on the destination or update files which have changed, but leave the matching files alone.
This would help in situations where you cannot copy everything all at once.
But no matter what you choose, you should measure your performance so you choose something that is good enough.
• If a client is fine, does anyone have a suggestion as to best one for speed? Doesn't have to be free -- I don't mind supporting good software.
Again just test what you have.
• Whats a good number to allow for simultaneous connections, given the number of files and their size?
If the bottleneck is the NAS, then adding more I/O that will force the disk heads to move away from the current file being written will just slow things down.
But try 2 connections and measure your performance. If it gets better, then maybe the NAS is not the bottleneck.
• What question am I not asking?
You should try using another system as a test destination device in the network setup to see if it gets better, worse, or the same throughput as the NAS. You need to see about changing things in your setup to isolate where the problem might be.
Also do not rule out bad ethernet cables, so switch them out as well. For example, there was a time I tried to use Gigabit ethernet, but could only get 100BaseT. I even purchased a new gigabit switch, thinking the 1st was just not up to the task. It turned out I had a cheap ethernet cable that only had 4 wires instead of 8 and was not capable of gigabit speeds. An ethernet cable that has a broken wire or connector could exhibit similar performance issues.
So change anything and everything in your setup, one item at a time and use the same test so you have a pear to pear comparision.

E4200v1 v1.0.03 (Build 14) MSS Clamping & Gigabit/jumbo frames

Does the E4200 perform MSS clamping to the WAN MSS / MTU?
I do not see this enabled in http://192.168.1.1/CBT_SystemIptables.asp
I'm having some weird issues where internal gigibit computers w/ jumbo frames (MTU = 9000) try to route data over the WAN (MTU = 1500) to other computers with internal gigibit connections w/ MTU = 9000. PMTU discovery then sometimes fails (with some routers that block ICMP), and the connection stalls or dies.
I'm not quite sure if this is happening at the local or remote end, but might be an issue with the E4200 not supporting jumbo frames and silently dropping large packets sent to it.
Has anyone else had similar issues?

gv wrote:
The E4200 does not support jumbo frames.
Pretty aburd that their top-of-the line consumer / "Maximum Performance" gigabit router doesn't support jumbo frames -- it's clear the chipset of the switch does [BCM53115].
For those who use jumbo frames on other internal devices (e.g. NAS), and then share those externally, this explicitly breaks a lot of connections.

Enable jumbo frame on Nexus switch

I read following phrase in configuration guide of Nexus 5020
The Cisco Nexus 5000 Series switch is a Layer 2 device. This means it does not fragment frames. As a result,
the switch cannot have two ports in the same Layer 2 domain with different maximum transmission units
(MTUs). A per-physical Ethernet interface MTU is not supported. Instead, the MTU is set according to the
QoS classes. You modify the MTU by setting Class and Policy maps.
When you show the interface settings, a default MTU of 1500 is displayed for physical Ethernet interfaces
and a receive data field size of 2112 is displayed for Fibre Channel interfaces
Has anybody configured jumbo frame with above mentioned way ?

Yes, it looks something like this:
policy-map jumbo
class class-default
mtu 9216
policy-map class-default
class class-default
mtu 9216
system qos
service-policy class-default

Airport Extreme with Gigabit Ethernet - Does it have jumbo frame support?

Please, can I get definite answer to this question? I do not need speculations as I read some reviews already. Can we have Apple finally put complete specification of the product rather than "popular one" with attachement of protocol numbers?
I just need simple answer possibly from Apple engineering team to the following questions:
1. Does current Airport Extreme have support for jumbo frames (everything above 1500bytes per frame)? (if one does not know what that is them perhaps understanding acronym "MTU" can help a bit)
2. If there is support then what is the maximum supported size of jumbo frame? (Some products do not go above 6k and I read some statistics that traffic somwhere is usually 66% at about 4k jumbo frames and above that there is not much...)
3. If there is no support then does Apple plan on update for this (firmware or hardware) in the future?
Please, do not tell me that someoene ran something with jumbo frame and it worked as I tried yesterday LaCie Ethernet drive with supposedly setup (I set it myself) of jumbo frame 4k and on soft reboot of the drive it worked when connected to Airp[ort Extreme, but after hard reboot the disk is not visible anymore. I will recover the disk, but I need to understand if I have chance of using jumbo frames that tremendously improve performance with large files (e.g. try movies stored for AppleTV on network drive) when using Airport Extreme with its gigabit Ethernet... or that is just Gigabit Ethernet for product marketing purposes only.
I just need reliable answer by product specification that should be on paper at Apple, but it is not so I hope that one of guys here has access to some engineering team.
Thank you,
Maciek Samsel

The spec. on the chip used by Apple support your conclusion.
BCM5395 Features
Complies with IEEE802.3, IEEE802.3u, IEEE802.3ab standards
5 10/100/1000Mbps Auto-Sense RJ45 ports supporting Auto-MDI/MDIX
All ports Support Full/Half Duplex transfer mode for 10/100Mbps and Full Duplex transfer mode for 1000Mbps
Port-based and MAC-based VLAN
IEEE 802.1Q-based VLAN with 4K entries
Port-based rate control
Port mirroring
Compact field processor (CFP)
512 rules
Filtering, classifications, remarking, and priority actions.
Priority modification on egress
DOS Attack Prevention
Loop detection for unmanaged configurations with Broadcom’s patented LoopDTech™ technology
CableChecker™ with unmanaged mode support
Double tagging
IEEE 802.3x programmable per-port flow control and back pressure, with IEEE 802.1x support for secure user authentication
4K entry MAC address table with automatic learning and aging
128-KB packet buffer
128 multicast group support
Jumbo Frame support up to 9728 byte

Enabling Jumbo Frames in CISCO Switch

Hi,
I have tried to enable jumbo frames by:
Go to Port Management >> Port Settings
Enable Jumbo Frames. Click Apply.
Save configuration and reboot
After that I try to verify that jumbo frames is really working by looking at the Status and Statistics >> RMON >> Statistics.
It seems that the page only shows frame size of up to 1632 Bytes. Does this mean that the Jumbo Frames are not working? Is this the correct way to verify that Jumbo frames are enabled?
Thanks.
James

Hi,
This setting allows the frames to pass on the switch, nothing more. The rest of the devices needs to capable to send and receive such frames as well. You need to configure the NICs and possibly applications to do this.
Make sure all communicating devices are capable of jumbo frames. If you mix them you will have trouble.
For a sample how to do this on linux see
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Jumbo_Frames
Hope this helps.

Does new airport extreme gigabit suppotr jumbo frames?

Hallo folks,
does anybody out there know, whether or not, new apple airport extreme support jumbo frames?
I tried, via wire, "ping -s" but no answer received with packets bigger than 1500.
Of course, already set up my macbook to allow jumbo frames up to 9000.
Any hint?
THANKS!! :))

Hi xiello,
Acording to this article, it does not:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30188/96/
Hope this helps,
Jamy

Routers: What Are Jumbo Frames and why do I need them?

Some routers' specs specifically mention that they handle jumbo frames (with a number like 9K). I have a network with 2 iphones, two ipads, 4 computers, two networked Blu-Ray players, and 3 computers, all of which are operating simultaneously a lot of the time.
Some other companies seem to be using the fact that they support jumbo frames as part of their selling points. How do they help?
I asked Cisco Chat support about the RVS4000 and whether it supported them on both the WAN and the LAN. They said not on the WAN. They also said "
It appears under the L2 Switch tab you can input a Max Frame type.....
I don't see anything that actually says jumbo frames but I believe you can put in a value.....
after the device is setup you can navigate to the L2 Switch option and it has a Max Frame value"
I'm not sure whether this router supports jumbo frames or not. I have a short list of wired gigabit routers that I'm considering for purchase and the RVS4000 is on the list.
I need to learn more about this topic so any help or pointers to stuff to read would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much for the info. I read virtually all of it. The Jumbo Frames thing sounds very tricky - and possibly detrimental. I'll have to see if Time Warner Roadrunner supports them and at what sizes. Other than for really big file transfers between machines on my network (which I don't do that often) it sounds like jumbo frames isn't going to do much for me.
It also looks like the RVS4000 is not what I want. The smallnetbuilder review was a very useful one-although it's 4 yrs old, it's still likely mostly valid.
I do some gaming at times and it sounded like the adjusting of frame sizes until all the devices in the path are the same can cause unacceptable latency. Now it seems that no matter which gigabit router I choose, I need to be sure I get one where I can disable the major frames process, and maybe enable it when I want to do hard drive backups across the network. Welcome to the gigabit ethernet world I guess.
The RV220W sounds like a nice machine, but is a lot more machine than I think I need for my network. I read a very detailed review of it on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2BBGBR6ARRJQO/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2SCJUQOKY7EN
It also sounds like it's more complex to set up than I would like to tackle. I'm a retired electrical engineer but definitely not a skilled IT person, so plug and play simplicity is important. I understand just enough to get in trouble.
Thanks again for the links. Much appreciated.

Jumbo Frames support on G4 Powerbook 1.67Ghz??

Hi - I have purchased a Thecus Nas and a gigabit switch, both support Jumbo frames. I want to use the NAS to stream video and hoped I could enable Jumbo Frames on all network devices. On my Powerbook internal NIC the Jumbo frames option is greyed out. Should I be able to configure Jumbo frames on my internal NIC? If so what am I doing wrong?
Many Thanks in advance,
Alan

See the following article:
Mac OS X 10.3 and later: "Jumbo" packet size is dimmed
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107962
It seems that this important Gigabit Ethernet feature is not included with most Mac NICs.

FTTH connection proper MTU Size and Jumbo frames

I've recently moved to a ISP that provides a 4mbps connection through FTTH(Single OFC). There is a EPON ONU in my premise from which a RJ-45 lan cable is connected to my Intel DH67CL1 board based PC. manual says, the NIC is a gigabit ethernet card. I tried setting MTU of 8996 and I can ping and browse fine. But, I'm totally in dark whether this value is optimum and works flawlessly browsing sites. How to find and set the proper MTU for a fibre network like this? Is the value correct?
I tried like this decreasing mtu value:
ifconfig eth0 mtu 8997
SIOCSIFMTU: Invalid argument
then,
ifconfig eth0 mtu 8996
^^^ No error message and it seems accepting.
BTW, from arch wiki, I saw that the driver module(e1000e which is used here) used by NIC have some bug report filed wr.to Jumbo frame. Am I doing things correctly? Earlier MTU was at default 1500. Please guide. thank you
Some drivers will prevent lower C-states
Some kernel drivers, like e1000e will prevent the CPU from entering C-states under C3 with non-standard MTU sizes by design. See bugzilla #77361 for comments by the developers.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ju … mbo_frames

yeah, i actually talked to support and they told me the same thing. just another example of misleading information from Linksys as here is what the manual and the help page say:
MTU
MTU is the Maximum Transmission Unit. It specifics the largest packet size permitted for Internet transmission. Select Manual if you want to manually enter the largest packet size that will be transmitted. The recommended size, entered in the Size field, is 1500. You should leave this value in the 1200 to 1500 range. To have the Router select the best MTU for your Internet connection, keep the default setting, Auto.
no where in that description does it say that 1500 is the maxmium.
because this is also a gigabit switch, one would expect that jumbo frame support is not out of the realm of possibility. as a point of reference any other $50 (or less) gigabit switch supports this, but that's what i get for expecting too much from Linksys.
thanks for the info.

New Mac Pro: Jumbo Frames available?

Hi,
i intend to buy a new mac pro - but beeing forced to use jumbo-frames in my network.
Is this network-packet-frame-size (9000) working on new mac pro´s ?
Thank you in advance for any information about it.
BR
Peter

It does not say "about 9000" -- Your frames are too big.
     -- Im not following you on this one. 9000 should be achievable, as many people can attest.
Are you enabling full duplex and flow control as well?
     -- Yes, as I said, "tried everything."
What happens when you try to manually configure 8160 or whatever packet size?
     -- Does not work. I said this in the post.
How do you confirm that you have indeed connected at Gigabit Speed, and at what packet size?
     -- ifconfig
The way I determined my negotiated packet size is a combination of ifconfig commands and logging and ping testing and logging using parameters to "back in" to the exact packet size thats being transmitted. This was done from the switch shell and the workstation shell.
The point of my post is that the Apple onboard NIC driver in ML is buggy. Mav's driver seems to have cleaned up a little, but still doesn't work in my scenario the way it should. When I say my scenario, I mean my exact scenario: M7100 switch, 5,1 MacPro 10.8.5, etc.
As stated in my post, the installation of a well written driver solved the problem, which proves Apples onboard driver has bugs as many people have known for years. You could always try to debug the driver if you wear big boy pants, but I'm wearing Scooby Doo.
We have a bunch of shiny black cylinder MacPro's coming in soon. Will be interesting to see if jumbo frames work as advertised. I feel like jumbo's been a little off since 10.6.8

SE2800 gigabit switch an jumbo frames

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for