nanog mailing list archives
Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett () netconsonance com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:40:01 -0700
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:Note the "not random" comment. People love to use the random feature of ixia/etc but it rarely displaysactual performance in a production network.Once upon a time, vendors released products which relied on CPU-based "flow" setup. Certain vintages of Cisco, Extreme, Foundry, Riverstone, etc come to mind. These could forward at "line rate" under normal conditions. Sufficient randomization on the sources and/or destinations (DDoS, Windows worm, portscans, ...) and they'd die a spectacular death. Nowadays, this is less of a concern, as the
...
Either way, I think it's a good test metric. I'd be interested in hearing of why you think that's not the case. Back on topic, doing a
Yes. And those problems were fixed in most gear. What I found *also* was that the flow tables tended to fill up, and a lot of gear thrashes on the flow tables. You need real bi-directional sessions to create the effect properly in many cases. (ie Extreme, which handles random fine but bidirectional flows proved that too much of the work was being done in software)
I have a current spreadsheet here, and trust me your math went wrongsomewhere. A completely full chassis is only a bit more than what you are...But no, I'm not going to redo the math. I'm not a F10 salesperson and Ihave much more important things to do right now.I'd be interested in seeing where I went "wrong", in the interest of setting the record straight. The original poster was interested in how Force 10 stacks up against the competition from a feature and price prospective. He deserves some cold science, and I'm trying to help him out.
I meant what I said, and I wasn't trying to be rude. There are F10 people on this mailing list, it would serve you to engage them instead of me. I'm quite happy with my Force10 units but I'm not making any commission selling them and I have too much to do to be doing someone else's job.
To wit, you said F10 is cheaper than a comparable Cisco 6500 (in a basic gig-e configuration). I demonstrated that's not the case. You responded with ad-hominem attacks, followed by indifference, and later, claims of emotional distress; still you refuse to provide any hard numbers, claiming it's "not your job". Where I come from, people like that are referred to as sore losers. :)
You're reading a lot more into it than I bothered to think about it. I've done the math repeatedly, and Force10 always comes out cheaper than Cisco in that scale of port density. Your numbers looked off to me, but letting you know the previous sentence is about all the time I can spend on this topic. Can we kill this now? Thanks.
-- Jo RhettNet Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Current thread:
- Re: BCP38 dismissal, (continued)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Randy Bush (Sep 07)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Randy Bush (Sep 11)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- RE: BCP38 dismissal James Jun (Sep 11)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 05)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Anton Kapela (Sep 05)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions jim deleskie (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Joel Jaeggli (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions jim deleskie (Sep 03)