Are You Really Getting 400 Gbit/s Performance?

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

Page 1 / 2 > >>

mfaisalk 9/14/2013 | 11:05:32 PM

400G performance We need to be careful with our judgements here. It is one vendor testing another vendor. What good you can expect here ?

Faisal

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

David Burns 9/13/2013 | 2:05:16 PM

Check the math Quote (snipped for conciseness):

if performance testing and evaluations show that a system will perform at 80 percent of its capacity limits under real-world network conditions ... 20 percent more space and 20 percent greater power consumption would be needed to achieve 400 Gbit/s of capacity.

Wrong. If actual performance is 20% lower, you need to provision 25% more equipment to achieve the targeted performance. Simple example: 8 x 400 Gbit/s should give you 3200 Gbit/s. If processors perform at 80%, actual performance of one processor is 320 GBit/s, so you need 10 to reach your target - 25% more than 8.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

desiEngineer 9/13/2013 | 1:17:08 PM

Re: Which network processor tests? Sterling,

If you can guarantee that the tests were fair and impartial, then yes, enquiring minds want to know.

If not, don't attach your name (and LightReading's), and then hide behind some "this is newsworthy" BS. And I don't care how sophisticated and expensive the lab is, I am not ingenuous enough to believe that the lab was created for the purpose of the general public. Clue#1: I haven't seen one report come out of that lab that showed a single Cisco product in a negative light.

No vendor has a vested interest in impartiality. Knowing how much marketing is attached to all claims, it behooves the operators to do their due diligence, but to pretend that Cisco can do that due diligence for all of us is naive at best.

-desi

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Surfer Blue 9/13/2013 | 12:54:07 PM

Re: Which network processor tests? Service providers do extensive testing before deploying any new hardware in their networks. FP3 cards have been available for a couple of years and are widely deployed – clearly they have been thouroughly vetted in the field. Personally I'd take real world testing and deployment experience over contrived competitor lab testing any day.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sterlingperrin 9/13/2013 | 9:36:34 AM

Re: Which network processor tests? Yarn,

You are correct - I have no interest in standing in the middle. Here's the thing. Cisco has a test lab that would be the envy of all but the very largest tier 1 operators. They conduct very thorough and very expensive testing of their competitors' products, which they've been doing for 13 years (probably not something they want publicized). In this case, they came to us - and some other media as well - with information from their labs that was compelling and newsworthy.

Are we saying that Cisco's results are conclusive about ALU, or any particular competitor? Absolutely not!! But we do believe there was enough in there to raise broad questions and write this piece.

I have received calls from people at ALU who are understandably upset. They are getting calls from customers who are asking questions. It's not an easy thing to go through, I'm sure, but as media, it is our job to bring the right topics of debate to the forefront and spark the dialogue. We made a judgment that 400G performance testing is a legitimate topic and that questions should be asked of all 400G NP players - ALU, Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, and any other market entrants that emerge.

Sterling

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

mendyk 9/12/2013 | 7:28:34 PM

Re: Which network processor tests? We note the sponsorship of the blog for full-disclosure purposes. We also note that Heavy Reading is wholly responsible for the content. The post by Sterling calls attention to the fact that performance claims often do not pass scrutiny, which means operators should do their own evaluations before making purchase decisions.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

tb100 9/12/2013 | 6:01:11 PM

Re: Which network processor tests? Wait a minute. Did you just say, and I quote: "It is Cisco's testing of Alcatel-Lucent's 400G processor"? (and 'blog was commissioned by Cisco Systems')?

So Cisco paid you to write an article that shows the 'results' of their testing of a competitor's product? Aren't the results pretty much predetermined, no matter what the capabilities of the product?

I am at a loss for words....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

yarn 9/12/2013 | 2:06:22 PM

Re: Which network processor tests? Sterling,

Why lend your name to help Cisco get credibility for this type of quasi-technical FUD bs articles they're so well known for? Now you're caught in the middle and have to stand up for their crap, and tarnish your own credibility in the process.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

mendyk 9/12/2013 | 11:53:53 AM

Re: Which network processor tests? All product testing -- including tests from independent labs -- should come with a big "grain of salt" warning. And in the case of vendor-run tests, results are clearly subject to question, especially from competing suppliers who had no influence on how the testing was done. From the point of view of prospective customers, though, it's important to understand when performance claims come with an asterisk or two.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sterlingperrin 9/12/2013 | 11:11:34 AM

Re: Which network processor tests? Manish,

Correct, we thought there was value in the piece as a call for due diligence.

If service providers are testing these systems at their limits across scenarios applicable to their network (including growth and possible changes to traffic patterns, etc.) then they are covered.

400 Gbit/s is very new. I don't how much testing has been done by anyone yet.

Sterling

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Page 1 / 2 > >>