| Author |
Message |
Sting
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:08 pm Post subject:
Real capacity of AD184 and 3408 |
|
|
Hey,
I'm choosing proper Alteon 4-7 layer switches for customers project
sustaining UDP based applications. However, Nortel product web
seemingly provides incomparable capacity descriptions for AD184 and
3408:
[*] AD184 features a 296k "session per second" while 3408 at 51k for
7-lyr session per second and 110k for 4-lyr session per second.
[*] AD184 has "concurrent sessions" up to 336 K while 3408 reaches
2M!
According to Nortel's product description, AD184 is much inferior to
3408. How come they provide such a conflicting comparison?
Does anyone has any realistic estimation method to evaluate certain
traffic ability of AD184 and 3408?
Thanks!
LW |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jim Sanchez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Real capacity of AD184 and 3408 |
|
|
In article <dc9ff3a7.0410180208.1f247226@posting.google.com>,
sleeking@hotmail.com says...
| Quote: | Hey,
I'm choosing proper Alteon 4-7 layer switches for customers project
sustaining UDP based applications. However, Nortel product web
seemingly provides incomparable capacity descriptions for AD184 and
3408:
[*] AD184 features a 296k "session per second" while 3408 at 51k for
7-lyr session per second and 110k for 4-lyr session per second.
[*] AD184 has "concurrent sessions" up to 336 K while 3408 reaches
2M!
According to Nortel's product description, AD184 is much inferior to
3408. How come they provide such a conflicting comparison?
Does anyone has any realistic estimation method to evaluate certain
traffic ability of AD184 and 3408?
Thanks!
LW
Well, the "session per second" refers to how many new requests the |
switch can process. The "Concurrent sessions" refers to the number of
sessions that can be entered into the session table. The AD series of
switches have much less memory and processing capability but they are
still pretty darn fast. The real issue is that they have been around
since early 2000 while the 3408/2224 are based on new architecture and
components and will be around much longer. Finally, the new development
is being done on the newer platforms. It comes down to how much you want
to spend and what are your requirements.
Enjoy
--
Jim Sanchez - Bellevue WA
JH_Sanchez AT hotmail.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:00 am Post subject:
Re: Real capacity of AD184 and 3408 |
|
|
Any ideas on when Nortel is going to update the hardware for the Web Switch
Module for the Passport 8600? From what I can tell, the current WSM is
basically an Alteon 180 built on a blade.
-mike
"Jim Sanchez" <jh_sanchez@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bddc45485da3b39896db@netnews.comcast.net...
| Quote: | In article <dc9ff3a7.0410180208.1f247226@posting.google.com>,
sleeking@hotmail.com says...
Hey,
I'm choosing proper Alteon 4-7 layer switches for customers project
sustaining UDP based applications. However, Nortel product web
seemingly provides incomparable capacity descriptions for AD184 and
3408:
[*] AD184 features a 296k "session per second" while 3408 at 51k for
7-lyr session per second and 110k for 4-lyr session per second.
[*] AD184 has "concurrent sessions" up to 336 K while 3408 reaches
2M!
According to Nortel's product description, AD184 is much inferior to
3408. How come they provide such a conflicting comparison?
Does anyone has any realistic estimation method to evaluate certain
traffic ability of AD184 and 3408?
Thanks!
LW
Well, the "session per second" refers to how many new requests the
switch can process. The "Concurrent sessions" refers to the number of
sessions that can be entered into the session table. The AD series of
switches have much less memory and processing capability but they are
still pretty darn fast. The real issue is that they have been around
since early 2000 while the 3408/2224 are based on new architecture and
components and will be around much longer. Finally, the new development
is being done on the newer platforms. It comes down to how much you want
to spend and what are your requirements.
Enjoy
--
Jim Sanchez - Bellevue WA
JH_Sanchez AT hotmail.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Sanchez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:41 am Post subject:
Re: Real capacity of AD184 and 3408 |
|
|
In article <0aWcd.648$i_4.5846@news.more.net>, robertsmj@missouri.edu
says...
| Quote: | Any ideas on when Nortel is going to update the hardware for the Web Switch
Module for the Passport 8600? From what I can tell, the current WSM is
basically an Alteon 180 built on a blade.
-mike
"Jim Sanchez" <jh_sanchez@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bddc45485da3b39896db@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <dc9ff3a7.0410180208.1f247226@posting.google.com>,
sleeking@hotmail.com says...
Hey,
I'm choosing proper Alteon 4-7 layer switches for customers project
sustaining UDP based applications. However, Nortel product web
seemingly provides incomparable capacity descriptions for AD184 and
3408:
[*] AD184 features a 296k "session per second" while 3408 at 51k for
7-lyr session per second and 110k for 4-lyr session per second.
[*] AD184 has "concurrent sessions" up to 336 K while 3408 reaches
2M!
According to Nortel's product description, AD184 is much inferior to
3408. How come they provide such a conflicting comparison?
Does anyone has any realistic estimation method to evaluate certain
traffic ability of AD184 and 3408?
Thanks!
LW
Well, the "session per second" refers to how many new requests the
switch can process. The "Concurrent sessions" refers to the number of
sessions that can be entered into the session table. The AD series of
switches have much less memory and processing capability but they are
still pretty darn fast. The real issue is that they have been around
since early 2000 while the 3408/2224 are based on new architecture and
components and will be around much longer. Finally, the new development
is being done on the newer platforms. It comes down to how much you want
to spend and what are your requirements.
Enjoy
--
Jim Sanchez - Bellevue WA
JH_Sanchez AT hotmail.com
You are correct that the WSM is essentially a 184 on a blade. I don't |
think a decision has been made on a new WSM version.
--
Jim Sanchez - Bellevue WA
JH_Sanchez AT hotmail.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in