1993
DOI: 10.1109/26.212382
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shared buffer memory switch for an ATM exchange

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
3

Year Published

1995
1995
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
10
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In the second iteration, two entries, (2,1) and (1,2) are selected since w12 = W21 = 3/2, the heaviest weight.…”
Section: P:! ___mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second iteration, two entries, (2,1) and (1,2) are selected since w12 = W21 = 3/2, the heaviest weight.…”
Section: P:! ___mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of lacking space, we will omit detailing of the results obtained in this area and just mention the studies [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], which include an extensive bibliography.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Cells involved in such an event are lost, causing a local resources waste (one or more idle cycles, even if in presence of data to be processed) and a system misuse (packets need to be retransmitted from the originating source): it is then necessary to serialize in some ways all the competing cells. Probably the most naive solution [5,6] is to use a shared memory, where inputs write their cells, and outputs read a suitably chosen subset of them (see figure 1(a) for a very simple graphical representation). Even if recent studies [7,8] have shown that this architecture, combined with a hierarchy of parallel memories, is practical and capable to guarantee quality of service, historically it was not taken into account, for the technological impossibility in having huge and extremely fast memories as needed to serve a high number of inputs/outputs at a fast enough speed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%