Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Huei-Sheng Kao who wrote (25964)	2/3/2000 10:35:00 AM
From: Craig Stevenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

Huei-Sheng Kao, I agree with you on this point, but until very recently the SANbox switch wasn't available. (I know, I sound like FC_FAN on this issue. I assure you I am not him.) I'm going to offer a specific example from the KeyLabs test: 5.2.4 Scalability Test Case 4 - Full bandwidth performance If you only saw the title of the test, not the results, and given what we all thought were the technological advantages in latency and throughput of the MKII, which switch would most of us here have said would have won? The MKII, of course. (That's certainly what I would have thought.) The results of the test say otherwise. The results show that the MKII was capable of 25 K-Frames per second per port, with an aggregate switch throughput of 200 K-Frames per second. The Brocade and Vixel switches had DOUBLE the throughput! Remember, the Vixel switch was the old Arcxel product which was supposed to be antiquated when compared to the MKII. My question is simple. Why? Is it a firmware problem (easy to fix), a hardware problem (hard to fix), or a design problem (impossible to fix)? Has it been fixed in SANbox? I certainly don't know, and nobody seems to want to ask these questions, let alone try to find the answers. It just seems to me that answers to these questions might be important. Craig