On 09/08/10 07:11, arulgobinath emmanuel wrote:
Dear All,
Anybody have tested these values (
http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf)
, since 64bytes on 1841 doesn't give the provided results (30Mbps).
Regards,
Gobinath.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at
t
>> expect that from Cisco. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Humbly,
>> cjw
>>
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:39:44 +0200
>> > From: "Elmar K. Bins"
>> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers
Cisco. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Humbly,
>> cjw
>>
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:39:44 +0200
>> > From: "Elmar K. Bins"
>> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
>
wrote:
> Thanks, Elmar. That *was* too easy and way too intuitive. (I did not
> expect that from Cisco. ;-)
>
>
> Humbly,
> cjw
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:39:44 +0200
> > From: "Elmar K. Bins"
> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject:
Thanks, Elmar. That *was* too easy and way too intuitive. (I did not
expect that from Cisco. ;-)
Humbly,
cjw
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:39:44 +0200
> From: "Elmar K. Bins"
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
> Me
war...@gmail.com (Christopher J. Wargaski) wrote:
> Thanks for posting the URL for the router performance matrix. Anyone
> know of a similar matrix for switches (L2 & L3) and firewalls?
Have you tried s/router/switch/ in the URL?
Life can be so easy.
> > Not all as requested, but a start:
> >
y, September 02, 2010 12:49 AM
To: Seth Mattinen; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
hi,
thank you all for your replies.
i didn't say ~90Mbit/s for 64Byte frame size is a bad thing (i said the low
value is of course because of very small frame-
> ...so if we have test results with these
> frame-sizes, we can be sure if the router we wanna buy can work under the
> highest load of the passing traffic on our network or not.
maybe for pure forwarding, but what if you throws acls, qos, fw, ids,
nat, etc into the equation? enabling more featur
--- On Thu, 2/9/10, bored to death wrote:
>
> for example, RFC 2544 says you should give benchmark
> results on traffic with
> frame-sizes of 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1518 byte. and in
> theory if we have
> combination of packets with different frame-sizes,
> performance is almost equal
> to
have test results with these
frame-sizes, we can be sure if the router we wanna buy can work under the
highest load of the passing traffic on our network or not.
thank you.
From: Seth Mattinen
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 10:
On 9/1/2010 09:04, Christopher J. Wargaski wrote:
> Thanks for posting the URL for the router performance matrix. Anyone
> know of a similar matrix for switches (L2 & L3) and firewalls?
>
Google "cisco switch performance"
~Seth
___
cisco-nsp mailing li
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:55:48AM -0700, bored to death wrote:
> the document you pointed out
> (http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf)
> was good for the start, thank you. but it was very limited.
> it just had the result for switching o
On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:55:48 pm bored to death
wrote:
> we have universal RFC 2544 for performance benchmarks of
> network devices like routers , etc. i was wondering and
> it's just a thought, shouldn't cisco or other vendors
> give performance specifications of their products based
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, bored to death wrote:
as i know, the normal frame size of ordinary networks are 1500Bytes which is
very bigger than 64Byte. for example, in this document, the maximum switching
The average is definitely not 1500 bytes, more like 500-700 bytes. Most of
packets are either sm
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, bored to death wrote:
the document you pointed out
(http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf)
was good for the start, thank you. but it was very limited.
it just had the result for switching of 64Byte frame packets, not any st
On 9/1/10 7:55 AM, bored to death wrote:
> hi,
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> the document you pointed out
> (http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf)
> was good for the start, thank you. but it was very limited.
> it just had the result for swi
p@puck.nether.net"
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Not all as requested, but a start:
>
> http://www.cisco.co
rmation exist?
thank you.
From: Bøvre Jon Harald
To: bored to death ; "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:46:24 PM
Subject: SV: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
Not all as requested, but a start:
http://www.cisco.com/web/partners
: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
hi,
for my research, i was looking for some documents about performance
specifications and benchmarks of cisco routers, such as 2800 and 3800
series.
oddly, i couldn't find any good document about these aspec
10:15
Til: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Emne: [c-nsp] Cisco Routers: Performance benchmark
hi,
for my research, i was looking for some documents about performance
specifications and benchmarks of cisco routers, such as 2800 and 3800 series.
oddly, i couldn't find any good document about
hi,
for my research, i was looking for some documents about performance
specifications and benchmarks of cisco routers, such as 2800 and 3800 series.
oddly, i couldn't find any good document about these aspects of routers, on
cisco website or by searching in google. the benchmark parameters i'm
21 matches
Mail list logo
