On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:26:10 AM Kurt Bales wrote:
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!
7201 comes close price-wise (J6350), and I've done 950Mbps
on them, with QoS and very basic/short
Agreed, tho I was specifically refering to the list price of the SRX220
that the previous poster had referenced.
K.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 19:38, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote:
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:26:10 AM Kurt Bales wrote:
To be fair, you find a Cisco product in
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 04:41:12 PM Kurt Bales wrote:
Agreed, tho I was specifically refering to the list price
of the SRX220 that the previous poster had referenced.
Ah okay - well, if you're sticking to the vendors'
portfolio, then Cisco's ASA firewalls are a better fit.
The smaller
* David Ball:
Right, because upon the release of any new PSNs, immediate
network-wide code upgrades are completed.
Seems to work fine with a $200 laptop running Windows. 8-)
--
Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:39:44PM -0400, Phil Shafer p...@juniper.net wrote:
Charlie Allom writes:
I've come across another performance issue - running through the jnxUtil
MIB - it drives the load up significantly:
The two key questions are is the script completing before you launch
the
Charlie Allom writes:
One thing I've noticed is that I have to copy the script to both op and
event locations. I'm sure I just haven't read enough yet to understand
why..
IIRC event scripts can be under /op/ but op scripts can't be under
/event/, but that might be out-dated.
Thanks,
Phil
Don't have a PR, but we've got MC-LAG working on MX960s, the documentation
is sketchy on what options are needed, and in my case we were missing the
switch-options service id command on both boxes, which caused l2ald daemon
to core dump. I did get a nice document from Juniper that talks about
Hi guys,
My two pence here - I think they are two totally different devices...
EX4500: 2U tall, will fit a shallow rack but still 2U, reversible air flow,
PSUs with fat 16A C19/C20 plugs, 40 x 10GE (max. 48), no 40GE, much higher
latency (store and forward only switch, 2 PFEs - around 4 x
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 12:37:22PM -0800, David wrote:
Don't have a PR, but we've got MC-LAG working on MX960s, the documentation
is sketchy on what options are needed, and in my case we were missing the
switch-options service id command on both boxes, which caused l2ald daemon
to core dump. I
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Wojciech Owczarek
wojci...@owczarek.co.ukwrote:
Hi guys,
My two pence here - I think they are two totally different devices...
EX4500: 2U tall, will fit a shallow rack but still 2U, reversible air flow,
PSUs with fat 16A C19/C20 plugs, 40 x 10GE (max. 48), no
Hi David,
Can you send me this MC-LAG documentation?
Regards,
Thiago Lizardo
Em terça-feira, 8 de novembro de 2011, Davidwebnet...@gmail.com escreveu:
Don't have a PR, but we've got MC-LAG working on MX960s, the documentation
is sketchy on what options are needed, and in my case we were
So, I realize the QFX3500 is more a low-latency, high performance switch. I'm
fine with the form factor, as this will probably be put into a server cabinet.
I have the a problem, because I can either buy two QFX3500s, or two EX4500s.
The requirements dictate both a storage, and IP network.
12 matches
Mail list logo
