T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2061.1 | Have heard to keep TTRT value close to default.... | NETCAD::BATTERSBY | Don't use time/words carelessly | Mon Jun 10 1996 18:40 | 13 |
| Well, I recall that varying the value of TTRT can affect
(sometime dramatically), the ultilization and latency of a
very busy FDDI ring, and that it has little affect on utilization
or latency on a lightly loaded ring. I don't have any personal
experience with changing this parameter from its default of 8ms
to an order of magnitude in the range of 160ms, so I can't speak
to whether this is useful or not. However I have heard many people
more knowlegeable than I of FDDI configs, not recommend changing it
too far from its default.
Perhaps others can chime in here with more empirical evidence of
the impact of changing it by a factor of 20.
Bob
|
2061.2 | | NETCAD::STEFANI | | Mon Jun 10 1996 18:57 | 23 |
| >> -< TTRT significance for DEFPA? >-
Most of the DEFEA and DEFPA device drivers offer a switch to change the
MACRequestedTTRT value whose range is 4-165ms and whose default is 8ms.
Note the word "Requested".
The TTRT is negotiating via a lowest bidder wins algorithm during the
FDDI claim process. If one node asks for 8ms and another node asks for
4ms, the 4ms. node wins.
Raj Jain wrote a paper on why the 8ms. default is a good idea and
should be left alone. The reason many of our device drivers allow you
to change the requested value is because end nodes are inherently
difficult to manage. Some FDDI network managers that want to twiddle
with the TTRT value indiscriminantly set the end node requested values
to something very high (eg. 160ms). Now, for all intents and purposes
the end node FDDI adapters are out of the bidding process. They can
then adjust the requested value at something more manageable (eg. bridge
or concentrator) and know that they'll win the negotiation.
Generally, this value should be left alone.
- Larry
|
2061.3 | | OTOOA::JPOND | | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:18 | 6 |
| Larry,
Thanks for the info. I looked for Raj's paper at
FILES::NET$ARCH:[PAPERS]FDDI_PERF.PS, but it seems to be
missing. Do you have a current pointer?
Jim
|
2061.4 | | NETCAD::STEFANI | | Tue Jun 11 1996 13:31 | 3 |
| >>missing. Do you have a current pointer?
Nope.
|
2061.5 | | 12368::thomas | The Code Warrior | Tue Jun 11 1996 13:45 | 1 |
| It's there now (FILES::NET$ARCH:[PAPERS]FDDI_PERF.PS).
|
2061.6 | | OTOOA::JPOND | | Tue Jun 11 1996 19:18 | 2 |
| Thanks,
Jim
|