On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://www.eantc.de/en/test_reports_presentations/test_reports/force_10_sfm_failover_video_ftos_6211.html >> >> >> http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-Force10/EANTC_Full_Report.pdf >> >> >> http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-Force10/Section_8.pdf > > Did you read these?
Yes. > They appear to be nonsense. They were bought and paid > for by Cisco, and including nonsense things like "if you leave a slot open > the chassis will burn up" as a decrement, which is also true in pretty much > every big iron vendor. Current-generation Cisco and Juniper hardware don't seem to have this problem. I don't think the "remove one SFM and all the others go offline" failure mode is commonplace among other vendors either. > They also deliberately detuned the force10 > configuration. They re-ran the tests using the recommended configuration > and got very different numbers -- which you can request from them, but they > won't publish on the website. I'd be interested in seeing this. Mind putting them up somewhere and sharing the URL? > Based on what? For E and C series boxes, Cisco is never cheaper. S-series > are a different story. I was comparing list pricing for the E-series up against Catalyst 6500, Supervisor 720-3BXL, 6700 blades with CFC... which I consider a fair comparison. >> As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E-series >> looks to be missing several key service provider features, including >> MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing. > > > Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware? Yes, they do, on the s720-3B and better. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
