On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:00:18AM -0700, Larry Letterman wrote: > The numbers speak for theirself... > > If you want to buy something cheaper, thats fine ... > If your comparing something based on price and similar performance > then you should have stated so in the 1st post... > > And yes, the hp boxes are cheaper than cisco boxes of the same caliber.. > > But hP's 25xx series does not outperform the cisco 35xx and the 9xxx > does not outperform the 6xxx... > > and I still have 2924/3524 switches that dont exhibit the problems you say > you > have.... > > and we still welcome the competition...:)
Great, there will never be any manufacturer that claim that their product is not the best one. Why don't you read the report from Tolly group http://www.hp.com/rnd/pdfs/Tolly_Jan01.pdf and investigate it..... You can say that 2924 is the best, 3524 is the best, but if the fact in the field says otherwise then your statement is just considered as a sales pitch ;). A couple months ago came Cisco sales, and he was marketing and presenting the Cisco IP Telephony product. There was one question raised, and that was can equipments from other manufacturers work together with Cisco equipment ? The answer is YES. But .... later the salesman told implicitly that if you don't use all Cisco equipments you can't call 911, if you don't use all Cisco equipments you can't do this and that ;) Interesting ... > > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Irwan Hadi > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 4:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: HP / Cisco performance [7:49919] > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:39:25AM +0000, Larry Letterman wrote: > > > As for the issues brought up earlier by the individual > > from USU, I have posted the marketing numbers from both > > HP and cisco.. > > Well marketing number .... This is the problem. > What I actually would like to see is not the marketing number, but the > technical number which represents the real capability of the switch. > For the 2900-XL-EN series, in its documentation I printed on 1st of May > 2001, it's stated that it has: > 3.2 Gbps switching fabric > 3.0 mpps forwarding rate at 64-byte packets > 1.6 Gbps maximum forwarding bandwidth > > In fact, when the port utilization reaches 100 Mbps, the switch can't > handle it. > How do you explain this ? > > > > > One more note, I have several 2950's and 3524 switches running > > full 100 X 24 ports and have no problems with thruput.... > > > The below numbers from both companies for the devices you mentioned > > dont seem to add up to the ability of hP switches to outperform .... > > > > procurve switch 2524 > > 6.6 million pps > > switch fabric speed: 9.6 Gbps > > > > Catalyst 3524-PWR XL > > 8.0-million- packets-per-second forwarding rate > > 10.8 Gbps switching fabric > > Well, let's see from the marketing stand point then... > Procurve 2524 the price is $793.22 based on > http://www.provantage.com/VHEWN16E.HTM > Catalsyt 3524-PWR-XL is $2401.43 based on > http://www.provantage.com/VCSCO201.HTM > > That is 3X the price of Procurve 2524, which means for the same price > I can get 3X24 ports = 72 ports... > This is interesting.... since both can support 100 Mbps full utilization, > but with the same price I can get 3 HP 2524 ? > > > > > > > procurve switch 5300xl series > > switch 5308xl and 5372xl: 48 Mpps > > switch 5304xl and 5348xl: 24 Mpps > > switch fabric speed: 76.8 Gbps > > > > Catalyst 6500 Series > > Switch Fabric 256 Gbps > > Layer-3 forwarding rate 210 Mpps > > Your comparison is not fair. > HP 5300XL is still considered as desktop/wiring closet switch, while > Catalyst 6500 is backbone switch. If you want to compare Catalyst 6500, > then you need to compare it with HP Procurve 9300M Series. > > For HP 9308m, you can see http://www.hp.com/rnd/products/pdf/9308m.pdf > that it has 256 Gbps and 96 Mpps capability right away. > I said "right away" since Catalyst 6500 can only has that capability (switch > fabric 256 Gbps) if you use supervisor 2 with PFC2 and MSFC2 which makes > additional cost is needed. (Without MSFC2, Catalyst 6500 can only achieve > forwarding capability of 30 Mpps according to > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca6000/prodlit/supcc_ov.htm). > > So ? > > > > > > > > Larry Letterman > > Cisco Systems > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If you want to send me private mail, send it instead to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is deleted automatically every day at 13:00(GMT-07:00). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49964&t=49919 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
