Charlotte's Networks, Take 2

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 15 / 26 > >>

dishwasher 12/4/2012 | 8:18:26 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 I would like Dave Newman to do a lot of stubborn benchmark testing in the future. If it weren't for him there would be no discussion over here in the first place. I want to learn more about these gizmos from different points of view without falling into better & best trap, even though I like the Aranea-1 and 2.

So, let's be glad with the forum and the results. We hope there will be another Terabit round soon. There is so much more to find out and to verify.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

JohnyBoyOh 12/4/2012 | 8:18:26 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Thank you for this post!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

JohnyBoyOh 12/4/2012 | 8:18:24 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2
<< I would like Dave Newman to do a lot of stubborn benchmark testing in the future. >>

No one questions the profesional skills of Mr. Newman. However, his approach lacks the objectivity required for comperative testing.

<< If it weren't for him there would be no discussion over here in the first place >>

Yep. This is probably true.

Regards,
John

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 8:18:23 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Charlotte's Web was tested for the first LightReading test on November 2000, that is, 3 months before the other vendors! Therefore conducting the second test 3 months after the other vendors seems quite just to me.
------------------------------

If you have been reading here, several people have
repeatedly countered this by saying that if Charlotte wasn't ready, they should not have tested in the first place.

Management or engineers who force a device that
is not ready into a test have nobody to blame
but themselves. They signed up for the test,
they did the test, they failed.

And beyond that, the main thing at issue here is that Charlotte had the test results of all the other vendors in front of it before it started.
That is NOT a fair testing process.

You can even see on certain benchmarks (the BGP maximum routes one) things that suggest that they were actively tuning to beat the public numbers of another vendor. (I think it was 80,000 better
than juniper).

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 8:18:22 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 No one questions the profesional skills of Mr. Newman. However, his approach lacks the objectivity required for comperative testing.

-------------------
I could accept that a whole lot more if it
were not all wrapped up in a defense of Charlotte's webs actions.

In fact, I have said similar things with regard
to his conduct of the original test. But there
are several people here who are almost demanding
that he act unprofessionally (and unethically)
in terms of Charlotte's new results.

Were he to make the comments several people here are/were pressing him to make, to me that would be far worse than any of his (wrong) actions in
the original test.

There is a long list of wrong things in the testing, but they have nothing to do with
Charlotte's or the retest.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sounder 12/4/2012 | 8:18:22 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 Charlottes Network has on its web site presently a full report, details and full comparision of "Light Reading" test results(Test 1 and Test 2). Check out the results at www.cwnt.com
The results are very suprizing...........

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dnewman 12/4/2012 | 8:18:22 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 << How can Charlottes claim that they have the best results when 3 months separate the tests conducted by Network Test/Spirent and the Tolly
group/Spirent. >>

CWNT and its learned advocates now claim the company was at a disadvantage because it supplied products for testing three months earlier than others in the LR project. This particular post also refers to the LR and Tolly projects as Spirent tests.

Both statements are false. While CWNT initially began testing 2.5 months prior to the conclusion of testing, it had the opportunity to return to the lab at any of five later time slots, including one that ended five days prior to the conclusion of all testing. CWNT agreed to return to one of these slots (in mid-January) but did not show.

Any suggestion that CWNT was at a three-month disadvantage is false. There was a five-day gap. Any other time issues are of CWNT's making and no one else's.

Spirent Communications is a vendor of test equipment. It has a strict neutrality policy and as such the company conducts no tests. The LR test was conducted by Network Test; the CWNT retest, by The Tolly Group.

Regards,
David Newman
Network Test

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

SPASM 12/4/2012 | 8:18:21 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 I don't understand the focus on the "3 months". The bottom line is this - Who has the better box now? Charlotte has a better box when comparing OC-48.

Who cares if Charlotte could fine tune their box to benchmarks already established? I applaud them for being able to fine tune their box, fix their problems, and come back to test their product.

There is no argument that Juniper and Cisco are the leaders in Routing and they are great companies. Charlotte should feel proud and honored to be in the sam technological class. Even if Charlotte was designated "3rd place" by default of 3 months or if Charlotte Lost the test, it would be ok - it would still be a major achievement to develop such a complicated box to compete with these huge guerillas.

To minimize such an accomplishment as producing a Terabit Router that can compete with the likes of Juniper and Cisco is indeed biased. The fact remains that Charlotte, a little start-up with minimal funding in comparison with JNPR, has come back with a box that is competitive in OC-48. Can you make a Terabit box in 3 months, 3 years? I welcome you to do so. If it were so easy to produce and design, the Terabit Router would be the next calculator, and service providers and carriers would be so pleased to buy a $100K or more box for only $8.

3 months before, 3 months after - it doesn't matter - who won the test - it doesn't matter. Light Reading should be the one that acknowledges the accomplishments Charlotte has made in an unbiased fashion.

And Dave, what are you doing? Don't you have anything to do? You sure do spend a lot of time defending your test, even though this was a "re-test" and you cannot verify because you didn't conduct it.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dnewman 12/4/2012 | 8:18:21 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 "Since in the first test CWNT tested 3 months before the other guys I wonder if they had Charlotte's test results, such as they were, in front of them before they stated testing? Just currious."

Duffeck,

Please see message 146 in this thread.

Regards,
David Newman
Network Test

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

duffeck 12/4/2012 | 8:18:21 PM

re: Charlotte's Networks, Take 2 "And beyond that, the main thing at issue here is that Charlotte had the test results of all the other vendors in front of it before it started.
That is NOT a fair testing process"

Since in the first test CWNT tested 3 months before the other guys I wonder if they had Charlotte's test results, such as they were, in front of them before they stated testing? Just currious.

duff

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 15 / 26 > >>