Force10 Gear - Opinions
owen at delong.com
Tue Aug 26 11:46:53 CDT 2008
> Standard benchmarketing. Not that I blame Cisco or EANTC for that,
> since they were debunking some benchmarketing done by Force10 and
> Tolly, but consider the source (and follow the money) when reading
> any "independent" test and what that means for accuracy.
> 80% of the EANTC report can be summed up as "The default CAM profile
> didn't do what we wanted, and we didn't bother asking Force10 for
> the commands to make it work." There are indeed some interesting
> product weaknesses, like any vendor has, but the fact that Force10's
> CAM can be partitioned to match the buyer's needs, rather than
> having a fixed configuration that all customers are forced to use,
> is an advantage in my book.
Having delved a bit deeper into F10's "partitioning" scheme, actually,
it's not as flexible as one might hope.
There are a very small number of relatively large pages and you have
to partition on page boundaries
which leaves you with only limited flexibility when it comes to the
Bottom line, in a few years, everyone carrying full tables with F10
gear will probably need to
upgrade all of their line cards to quad-cam.
Another thing to note (as near as I can tell, this applies to all
vendors). All line cards will function
only at the lowest common denominator line card CAM level.
IOW, if you have single, dual, and quad-cam cards in your F10 chassis,
they'll all act like
More information about the NANOG