You should really compare the BigIron 8k with the
cat6500 or a cisco7600.
When you measure QoS, you should check out at what
point does QoS force packets to drop them to the
ether.. 1st second, 30th second, 60th second? :)
What are you using for a packet generator?
How much could you push the Gigabit cards under
Win2k megabyte wise?? Its no where near 1gig...
-Joe
---- KF <kf@reign.sk> wrote:
> Heyla,
>
> Would like to share some testing info's wich I
observed...
>
> Big Iron:
> Version 07.2.09T53
> Cat5500
> S-C5500 Software, Version McpSW: 6.3(4) NmpSW: 6.3
(4)
> RSM
> IOS (tm) C5RSM Software (C5RSM-IK8O3SV-M), Version
12.2(6a)
>
> tested modules:
> Cat RSM:
> 12 1 WS-X5302 Hw : 7.5
> Fw : 20.22
> Fw1: 3.1(1)
> Sw : 12.2(6a)
> Cat Supervisor III
> 1 0 WS-X5530 Hw : 3.4
> Fw : 5.1(2)
> Fw1: 4.4(1)
> Sw : 6.3(4)
> Cat 24 port switch
> 2 24 WS-X5224 Hw : 1.4
> Fw : 3.1(1)
> Sw : 6.3(4)
> 3 gig E SX
> 5 3 WS-X5403 022127016 Hw : 1.3
> Fw : 4.5(2)
> Sw : 6.3(4)
>
> Cat 24 port switch
> 8 24 WS-X5224 Hw : 1.3
> Fw : 3.1(1)
> Sw : 6.3(4)
>
> Big iron 8000:
>
> supervisor with 8 gig E SX
> S1: BxGMR4 M4 Management Module, SYSIF 2 M4,
ACTIV
> switching cards 24 port
> S2: B24E Copper Switch Module OK
> S3: B24E Copper Switch Module OK
>
> Statement:
>
> I agree, that this two devices are not comparable.
I did comparation in "limits" where both should gave
as good as they claim
> performance.
>
> Test bed is made of 3 Servers with 100Mbit FDX
Intel chipset (erghmm compaq neteligent) .. each
server have around 800 MHZ CPU and
> High speed SCSI HDDS with STRIPE SET (no parity)
and 512 MB ram...
> Servers running Win2K (do not blame me on
that..they performing very well also with Gigabit
Eth adapters...have done it years
> ago...)
> Netbios and all shitty services disabled...
>
> tested with packet generators and ftp (standard
IIS 5.0 patched and standard ms client)
>
> now... I don't want to publish here all data (want
to hide ;-))) but my results are:
>
> - testing L2 switching...
> Cat 5000 very good
> Big iron little more performance
> - testing L3 swithing ....(mls)
> cat 5000 very good
> big iron once again better...and better than L2
switching at all why?!?
> - testing L3 switching with extended IP access
list IN/OUT
> cat 5000 good but CPU RSM running 30 %
> big iron CPU 5 % and THE SAME throughput...
11110.43Kbytes/sec hmmm (output from ftp client..)
>
> Now I'm testing QoS... dunno if want to publish
any nfo's...
>
> now...
>
> awaiting discussion..from both sides... c'mon...
let's start hiding..or?
>
> Alex
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:01 EDT