perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
joseph j. kim
jokim at ipcom.com
Wed Aug 27 03:00:05 UTC 1997
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote:
> >From Cisco's:
>
> technology preview of Cisco's new family of gigabit switch routers (GSRs)
> providing high performance solutions ranging from 5 to 60 Gb/s for
> Internet and large-scale WAN Intranet backbone applications.
>
> Now, I've got a GRF 400 with the ATM OC-3c card, the FDDI card, and the
> 10/100Base-T card. It works flawlessly. And I can't honestly see how the
>
> > Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco
> > claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400.
>
> I've had cisco sales reps claim even more ludicrous things while the
> support engineer started turning red, so who knows...
hi,
Ok. since no one else bothered to post real numbers here are some:
Cisco numbers:
=============
Cisco 7500 Ascend GRF
Performance 2 Gbps 4 Gbps
System Bandwidth 1.4 Mpps 2.8 Mpps
Theoretical
Performance with 65 - 85 Kpps 35 - 70 Kpps
180 byte (Bi-directional) (Bi-directional)
packets
Line Card Forwarding 325 Kpps 280 Kpps
Rate (7507 w/ 5 VIP.s) (Fully Loaded)
Real Performance
Performance w/ Services 880 - 1000 Kpps 140 - 210 Kpps
Routing Table Size 250,000 + 150,000 +
The tolly/ascend report numbers:
===============================
looking at their data (n.t. = not tested):
# of modules cisco 7514 w/rsp4 GRF1600 GRF400
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 122,300 60,388 59,731
2 244,520 120,848 119,348
3 366,516 n.t. n.t.
4 368,575 241,516 236,776
6 367,774 360,000
8 367,302 483,016
16 n.t. 965,424
Using Random IP- in this test the routers were re-booted and the
performance measured at 15 minutes after boot time. also, destination IP
addresses were varied by randomly generating class c dest. addresses.
random ip test (at +15 min. after boot):
# of modules cisco 7513 w/rsp4 GRF1600
------------------------------------------------
1 41,096 54,454
2 84,504 107,720
3 72,762 162,750
4 86,654 217,700
5 71,867 265,500
So, who's numbers should we believe or feel are more appropriate to real
world situations?
> Comparing GateD to IOS becomes more of a religious preference than
> anything else. I'm content knowing both, truth be told.
>
> > maybe someone can post some performance numbers.
-jjk
More information about the NANOG
mailing list