To be fair, you find a Cisco product in the same price range with the same features that can come even close to that throughput!
K. On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:00, David Ball <davidtb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 November 2011 14:10, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > >> What are others doing to deal with the "flow" issues associated with > >> more recent versions of code? > > > > We simply upgraded the RAM and forced packet mode. > > > > Interestingly, we're toying with the idea of using the little SRX2xx > series > > devices in place of J-series. They're a LOT smaller than the (enormous!) > > J-Series and seem to us to be no worse. We've got a couple in service and > > they work fine. > > I was a little surprised at the throughput of the SRX220 in packet > mode. Only 496Mbps bidirectional at 1500bytes, and drops to 72Mbps at > 64bytes. It IS a security device of course, not a router strictly > speaking, so I admit my hopes were a little high. > > > >> I'm interested in knowing how others have tackled these challenges > >> for customers with hundreds of these in the field. > > > > Well, we don't have hundreds... in that case, the RAM/flash upgrades will > > take a tedious amount of time. > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp