There's noting magical about Crisco memory that would justify their
markup, it's just the standard "make service and upgrades a profit
center" philosophy at work. One of the reason that Cisco is such
a succssful company is that they focus on that bottom line profit
even if it seems like "highway robbery".
On the other hand, they do actually qualify specific manufactures'
product/version to work in their product. There is a huge gap between
that "and no-name generic PC-100 regsitered server memory" that you
can find on the web or mail order, which might be sourced from vendor X
on one day, or assembled from parts from vendor Z on another.
If you've worked (or had to work with) qualification engineers, you'd
be surprised how much stuff end up in the "samples didn't pass" bin,
especially early in the technology life-cycle.
I'm happy that Cisco might qualify 256M in the NPE-225, it's just not
that earth-shaking to me, since we don't have any NPE-225's, and I have
enough other options.
OTOH, if someone tells me that there's 4x64M config that will work in
an NPE-150's or RSP-2's (both fit and function), that as a bigger
impact. Any tricks lurking in the 2600/3600 family?
George
> From cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net Tue May 29 11:45:57 2001
> Resent-Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:45:27 -0400
> Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:43:08 -0400
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:43:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: <jlewis@lewis.org>
> X-Sender: <jlewis@redhat1.mmaero.com>
> To: George Robbins <grr@shandakor.tharsis.com>
> cc: <gert@greenie.muc.de>, <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>, <kf@reign.sk>
> Subject: Re: [nsp] 7206 NPE 200
> In-Reply-To: <200105291523.LAA28478@shandakor.tharsis.com>
> Resent-From: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> X-Mailing-List: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/6510
> X-Loop: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, George Robbins wrote:
>
> > This particular issue would be more important if NPE-225's were
> > much cheaper, faster or if they were readily available on the used
> > equipment market. 8-)
>
> It's still an issue since they come with only 64mb...and generally any ISP
> buying one will want 128-256mb and not want to pay the premium[1] Cisco
> charges for "Cisco memory".
>
> [1] in the past Cisco has generally charged about 10x market price for
> memory. If their memory is so good, why do I keep having access-servers
> with 32mb original Cisco simms have their memory go bad and need
> replacement? Cosmic rays?
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
> System Administrator | therefore you are
> Atlantic Net |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:39 EDT