Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Another Test: MAX6000
Well, Heres a Tolly Group report that shows the 6000 coming
out on top against Cisco/Lucent etc..
Ascend Communications, Inc. MAX 6000 Remote Access Concentrators:
Analog and ISDN Throughput Test Summary
Document Number:
8263
(http://www.tolly.com) Look for document 8263
But, Let's be honest, Do these report actually hold any truth, It seems
each vendor will come out with it's own report from foo.com showing it's
box kicking much ass. Honestly if we the customers made decisions based
on these reports we would be switching vendors about twice a week.
Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations
Network Access
Erols Internet
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Ales Kriznik wrote:
>
> Bay's Versalar 5399 tops remote-access field, says Network World
> Summary:
> An article in the 3/23/98 issue of Network World, has shown that the
> Versalar 5399 RAC has topped the field of five in its testing of Remote
> Access products. The Versalar 5000, outfitted with the Versalar 5399
> Remote Access Concentrator (RAC) Module aced the performance tests, turning
> in the best throughput numbers.
> Tests were conducted using 60 Windows 95-based PCs, each of which tapped
> its own 33.6 Kbit/sec modem to transfer files to and from a Windows NT
> 4.0-based server via the RAS unit being tested. After all 60 clients
> dialed-in and connected, the test started with a single node transferring
> files, increasing to two nodes transferring files at once and so on. If no
> calls were dropped, then the test was repeated three times and an average
> throughput figure was calculated for uploads and downloads as measured at
> each client. If calls were dropped, each vendor had a chance to diagnose
> the problem and apply fixes. If the fixes didn't work, then the average of
> the three best test runs were calculated, as was the case for Ascend and
> Shiva.
> Upload rates were higher than download rates, which is a common phenonmenon
> in this type of test.
> Bay finished first-
> Number 1: Bay Networks Versalar 5399 RAC
> average upload throughput- 99.1 Kbit/sec
> average download throughput- 67.8 Kbit/sec
> Others participating in the test and the order in which they finished, were:
> 2: Compaq's Microcom 6200 Remote Access Concentrator
> average upload throughput- 73.2 Kbit/sec
> average download throughput- 51.3 Kbit/sec
> 3: 3Com's Total Control HiPer Access System/EdgeServer Pro Module
> average upload throughput- 73.3 Kbit/sec
> average download throughput- 34.2 Kbit/sec
> 4: Ascend's MAX 6000
> average upload throughput- 73.4 Kbit/sec*
> average download throughput- 35.1 Kbit/sec*
> *note- Ascend placed fourth because its box was experiencing problems and
> could not complete the test. The throughput stats for Ascend are based on
> 59 simultaneous clients.
> 5: Shiva's LanRover Access Switch
> average upload throughput- 74.2 Kbit/sec**
> average download throughput- 52.5 Kbit/sec**
> **note- Shiva placed last because it was dropping calls once it hit 22
> simultaneous clients. The throughput stats for Shiva are based on 22
> simultaneous clients.
> Cisco, a key player in this market, was also invited. But Cisco said they
> couldn't free up a technician during the timespan that the tests were given
> and consequently declined to participate.
> If you want to see the original article, you have to access Network World's
> website http://www.nwfusion.com , as a registered user. You can register
> with them online (its free).
> If you are a Network World registered user and would also like to see the
> original article, then click on the URL below:
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/0323review.html
>
>
> ++ 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:
References: