Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...
What about this test, Bay 5399 vs TNT:
http://www.tolly.com/dynamic/Pdf_Temp/9300-7288.pdf
- it is Tolly based
- it paid from Bay
Any comment?
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>
To: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>
Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com <ascend-users@bungi.com>
Date: 17. oktober 1997 19:51
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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>
>
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
Follow-Ups: