Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote:
At 08:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote:
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. :-)
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
At 09:50 PM 8/25/97 -0700, joseph j. kim wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote:
At 08:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote:
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 ,,, (o-o) ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.--------------------------------- Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is Chief Nerd, \ possible without a NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent \ madness! hoff@nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote:
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 http://www.ascend.com/300.html.
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
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote:
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...
hi, Ok. since no one else bothered to post real numbers here are some: Cisco numbers: ============= Cisco 7500 Ascend GRF Performance 2 Gbps 4 Gbps System Bandwidth 1.4 Mpps 2.8 Mpps Theoretical Performance with 65 - 85 Kpps 35 - 70 Kpps 180 byte (Bi-directional) (Bi-directional) packets Line Card Forwarding 325 Kpps 280 Kpps Rate (7507 w/ 5 VIP.s) (Fully Loaded) Real Performance Performance w/ Services 880 - 1000 Kpps 140 - 210 Kpps Routing Table Size 250,000 + 150,000 + The tolly/ascend report numbers: =============================== looking at their data (n.t. = not tested): # of modules cisco 7514 w/rsp4 GRF1600 GRF400 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 122,300 60,388 59,731 2 244,520 120,848 119,348 3 366,516 n.t. n.t. 4 368,575 241,516 236,776 6 367,774 360,000 8 367,302 483,016 16 n.t. 965,424 Using Random IP- in this test the routers were re-booted and the performance measured at 15 minutes after boot time. also, destination IP addresses were varied by randomly generating class c dest. addresses. random ip test (at +15 min. after boot): # of modules cisco 7513 w/rsp4 GRF1600 ------------------------------------------------ 1 41,096 54,454 2 84,504 107,720 3 72,762 162,750 4 86,654 217,700 5 71,867 265,500 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.
-jjk
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote: ==>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
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT) "joseph j. kim" <jokim@ipcom.com> wrote:
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.
You have a GSR in production then? I have a GRF in production with ATM, FDDI and Ethernet, we use it to talk to Nortel Passport Switches and other GRFs. We also have a GRF plugged in to the FDDI Waveswitches at the LINX and yes we've had a few problems with the box, mostly on the ATM side, but Ascend are attentive and produce fixes and new features regularly. I'm looking forward to the new 1.4 software which looks good. Also because it runs gated, routeing with the box is very good, I've had no BGP4 problems with this, other than I wish they would release the gated as a seperate software product so I can run it on my non-GRF routers.
maybe someone can post some performance numbers.
I believe the Tolly group did some [not that I'd trust anything to come out of them]. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (5)
-
Craig A. Huegen -
hoff＠nodewarrior.net -
Joe Shaw -
joseph j. kim -
Neil J. McRae