Evaluate the statement: In heavily overloaded switching backplanes, crossbar switching provides better performance than cell-backplane switching.

Introduction / Context:
Switch fabric design impacts how well a switch sustains throughput as offered load increases. Two common architectures are crossbar (non-blocking port-to-port paths) and shared or cell-based backplanes (where packets are segmented into fixed-size cells and traverse shared internal bandwidth).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We compare performance under heavy overload.
• Crossbar implies multiple simultaneous, dedicated paths across the fabric.
• Cell backplane implies segmentation and shared internal bandwidth arbitration.

Concept / Approach:
Crossbar fabrics allow many non-conflicting port pairs to communicate simultaneously, reducing head-of-line blocking and internal contention. Under overload, scheduling can still allocate paths efficiently for parallel conversations. Cell-based backplanes incur segmentation/reassembly overhead, potential internal contention at shared memory or buses, and can suffer more from head-of-line blocking when queues back up.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Vendor whitepapers and queueing models show crossbar/Clos fabrics approaching non-blocking behavior, whereas shared-memory or bus-based designs saturate earlier.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• 'False' ignores well-known scaling advantages of crossbar under contention.
• Qualifiers about 'low utilization' or 'only unicast' miss the core architectural benefit.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing front-panel line-rate claims with sustained internal switching capacity; internal architecture determines behavior under stress.

Final Answer:
True