From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4493B25E for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id C44C8A2; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:14:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1476987281; bh=8Q5cupVliXSecDEudiTARf/ltCeW2SoFhVa/IPZsuwo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Nm/S3QaBTsGKVFM+hHAIFAMI+iqbMLyrDuGQMID7O4GIQJu2YsKPrNPIKWnCHIQ/w kJr+vFu3F7K0TSyuebVCZWobQJKYUCHamRC100FOTfjibHCmyWzyVRFoo2OeG0TmKi dvrgp2WJZXh+7RYhlN5ppGoRuVv71mJ+NF4PLI+4= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC2FA1; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:14:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:14:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: leetminiwheat cc: bloat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Bloat] Any non-bloaty 4port or 8port GigE switches? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:14:43 -0000 On Sun, 3 Jul 2016, leetminiwheat wrote: > Hi, sorry for the noise here but can anyone recommend a decent non-bloated > 4port or 8port GigE switch? something supporting bonding/failover would be > a bonus but not a requirement. Do you have bloated gig switches? It's usually problem the other way around, these devices typically have 128 kilobyte of buffer shared between all ports which is way too little. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se