Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Matt Holdrege wrote:
> At 03:41 AM 10/17/97 -0400, Jason Nealis wrote:
> >
> >Ouch.. Kevin? any word on this report? I believe the code that
> >was on the TNT was 1.3ap6 pretty recent... Although they
> >didn't say what revision the Modem cards were and the shelf controller
> >was.
>
> Here's my 2 cents:
>
> First of all, Lanquest didn't say if the modems were V.34 or 56k. They did
> basically a router test, not an Access Server test. They tested packet
> sizes of 64K and 256K when most of our customers have average packets sizes
> of 800K (for email and http.)
>
> There are a few other things I could criticize them on, but this whole
> thing gets petty. There was a Tolly test on the TNT which was a network
> access server based test. This test showed the TNT performing far better
> than the Cisco/Lanquest test did.
Was this Tolly test the TNT vs the 5300? or the 5200?
>
> Back when I was a customer, I never paid much attention to reports in trade
> mags. They never seemed to be based in reality. I always recommend that
> folks test the equipment in a real network doing the exact job that you
> need it for.
Agreed, These tests seem to favor who ever pays the most. I can say in
regards to the TNT my users get better thoughput on them then on the
Max's. The software just needs to be more stable.
Jason
>
> Matt Holdrege - http://www.ascend.com - matt@ascend.com
>
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: