i don't understand all of the mail comparing the two, there is really no
comparison. the GSR blows the GRF away. there is an order of magnitude
difference in the aggregate b/w supported between the two correct? 4Mb/s
vs 40Mb/s. Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco
claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400.
maybe someone can post some performance numbers.
-jjk
>
>
>> Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case
>>
>> Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?
>
>We have been trying to get a BFR (now GSR) in, but I think Cisco does not
>want a GSR next to a GRF or something.
>
Since I began the thread with my request for REAL-LIFE evaluations of those
who had installed the GRF versus the (AVAILABLE) Cisco 7500-series routers,
I've received over 100 replies -- some copied to the list, others not.
The replies present an interesting dichotomy -- some replies are obviously
generated from pure brand-bigotism, others actually allowed logic and
sensible TECHNICAL evaluations speak for them.
What I asked for were ENGINEERING data -- not marketing diatribe. Some
of the people on this list need to seriously re-evaluate their job
descriptions and realize that evangelism is one thing -- serious
technical evaluations are quite another.
i don't understand all of the mail comparing the two, there is really no
comparison. the GSR blows the GRF away. there is an order of magnitude
difference in the aggregate b/w supported between the two correct? 4Mb/s
vs 40Mb/s. Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco
claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400.
So, I am to assume that you have (or have had) both a GRF and a GSR in your
lab for evaluation? Aggregate bandwidth means squat in the real world if
you can't forward/switch packets efficiently in a loaded network. When
my GRF gets here, we'll be switching out one of our 7500's (for eval., of
course!) and putting it to real-world tests (full BGP, HSSI and Fast
Ethernet.)
What worries me is that your statements above seemto blindly contradict one
another:
First you state "... the GSR blows the GRF away" and then you go on to say
"Also, not that I know anything about the GRF," and "...maybe someone can
post some performance numbers."
Anyone (including myself) can read a piece of marketing fluff and make
an uninformed decision, but I think that it makes more sense for
everyone involved if we try to provide one another with information that
goes beyond what one may find in a Tolly Group report. In the REAL world,
there's quite a difference between a device that "works" and one that
"works well."
Cisco and Ascend both make great products. Each company has its strengths
and weaknesses. What we need to do is /dev/null the "Chevy vs. Ford"
sandbox drivel and provide one another with useful information.
I don't mean this in a harsh manner -- I just want to point out that there
was not much meat with your potatoes.
CHris
i don't understand all of the mail comparing the two, there is really no
comparison. the GSR blows the GRF away.
I wasn't comparing the GSR and the GRF. I was comparing the Cisco 7508
that I used to have at a previous job to the GRF 400 I just got. As far
as the GSR goes, I haven't seen one in real life. It sounds cool, but I
want to see one for myself before I say the thing walks on water. My GRF
works great now, and I'm satisfied with it's performance so far, though
right now it's still not doing much.
there is an order of magnitude
difference in the aggregate b/w supported between the two correct? 4Mb/s
vs 40Mb/s.
From the Ascend Web Page:
Available in two sizes, the GRF 400 holds up to 4 media
cards for up to 4 Gb/s bandwidth, while the GRF 1600
supports up to 16 media cards for up to 16 Gb/s of
bandwidth. The unique GRF switching architecture is
specially designed to handle network growth while
providing consistent, high performance, regardless of the
dynamics of the network.
It has the following cards:
Ascend ATM OC-3c IP Forwarding Media Card
Ascend FDDI IP Forwarding Media Card
Ascend HSSI IP Forwarding Media Card
Ascend IP/SONET OC-3c IP Forwarding Media Card
Ascend 10/100Base-T IP Forwarding Media Card
For more details, check www.ascend.com : nom de domaine enregistré chez Safebrands - Registrar Icann, Afnic, Eurid.
From Cisco's:
technology preview of Cisco's new family of gigabit switch routers (GSRs)
providing high performance solutions ranging from 5 to 60 Gb/s for
Internet and large-scale WAN Intranet backbone applications.
Now, I've got a GRF 400 with the ATM OC-3c card, the FDDI card, and the
10/100Base-T card. It works flawlessly. And I can't honestly see how the
Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco
claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400.
I've had cisco sales reps claim even more ludicrous things while the
support engineer started turning red, so who knows...
Comparing GateD to IOS becomes more of a religious preference than
anything else. I'm content knowing both, truth be told.
maybe someone can post some performance numbers.
-jjk
Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
hi,
Ok. since no one else bothered to post real numbers here are some:
Cisco numbers:
==>So, who's numbers should we believe or feel are more appropriate to real
==>world situations?
==>
==>> Comparing GateD to IOS becomes more of a religious preference than
==>> anything else. I'm content knowing both, truth be told.
==>>
==>> > maybe someone can post some performance numbers.
Tolly's report didn't use CEF/FIB switching, and used classical
(centralized) switching. Ascend paid Tolly for the test anyway--the only
*true* test would be one from Data Communications or similar.
/cah
