Charlotte's Networks, Take 2

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

Page 1 / 26 > >>

52506 12/4/2012 | 10:00:29 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 True, the 3 people writing to themselves on Yahoo are employees of MRVC and do not write contrary beliefs other than exagerations of half truths and total lies.

Anyone with contrary views are ridiculed by bashings of being called names or corrections in spelling, grammar.

Pretty sad actually, since they are contributing to their own demise. Only morons or idiots cannot see what they are doing.

Charlotts Web is not functional. The long running test on top of the buildings on Chatsworth, California has long been abandoned due to non functioning and problems.

The test results are now manufactured since no one is monitoring a self-test by devious means.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

larrymoeandcurly 12/4/2012 | 8:20:20 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Looks like CW has an EDGE ROUTER.

Better that than nothing at all.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

perry1961 12/4/2012 | 8:20:19 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Who's got the biggest baddest router on the market now?????
Charlottes Web!!!!!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 8:20:18 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 OC48 Latency with 40-byte IP Packets

Minimum: 11.15 (milliseconds)
Average: 19.97
Maximum: 23.35

Is it really in milliseconds ? Then there is nothing here to brag about.

Thanks,

Netskeptic

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

tink 12/4/2012 | 8:20:16 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 As David Newman points out, all the vendors are bound to have improved their routers by now. So "Who's got the biggest baddest router on the market now?????" That's anybody's guess.

But we do now know that they're all neck and neck when it comes to the basics. The real question is "Who's got the router I want to buy?" The LR tests are not a differentiator, so you'd better get busy selling some reliability, service, and next-generation features.

But congrats on completing the tests.

Tink

P.S. Is that really milliseconds?!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 8:20:14 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Who is neck to neck ?

Unless it is a typo CW has about 1000 bigger latency than JNPR.

Thanks,

Netskeptic

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

perry1961 12/4/2012 | 8:20:13 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 "As David Newman points out, all the vendors are bound to have improved their routers by now. So "Who's got the biggest baddest router on the market now?????" That's anybody's guess"

Identical tests,yet Mr.Newman won't say how the results compare.Yes,anybody's guess....for now.
But,if Mr.Newman is THAT afraid to make comparisons,the Aranea-1 must have run rings around Juniper....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Peter Heywood 12/4/2012 | 8:20:11 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Thanks for pointing out the typo on the units used for latency measurements. It's micro not milliseconds. I've fixed it in the article.

Peter

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

perry1961 12/4/2012 | 8:20:09 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Thanks for fixing the error,but the article is still USELESS!
We have no scale to compare the results with,and don't know how to interpret the numbers.Lightreading is going overboard in its efforts to understate the results imo.
Please give us something we can understand....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

perry1961 12/4/2012 | 8:20:08 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 "It's a question of not being able to compare like with like, for the reasons I gave in the story."

Okay,I'll settle for the numbers in the story,whatever the hell they mean.
Sorry for taking up space on your useless site Mr.Heywood.It won't happen again....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Page 1 / 26 > >>