From: P729 (p729@cox.net)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 18:53:05 GMT-3
"We definitely didn't use anything with a GUI and wouldn't have wanted
it. Scripts are far easier for change control, regression testing,
etc. As an aside, wearing my developer hat, one of the chief
frustrations of my life is integrating products that are GUI-based.
It's very hard to drive them with external scripts or interprocess
communications through telnet or rpc."
I can certainly relate. For our staging engines, the first "GUI" we had to
learn to parse was ANSI (Wellfleet, Cabletron and, ahem, HP ProCurve) way
back when and it sufficed for a long time (at least in Internet years). We
finally got around to HTML and then along comes Java and XML. Sheesh.
Regards,
Mas Kato
https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: switch router performance
At 9:33 PM +0800 7/6/03, wing_lam@jossynergy.com wrote:
>Hi Howard,
>
>I have tried Nortel before, but do you know is there any free tools to do
>it? I mean the one with versatile gui and functions.
I'm not sure what you have in mind by tools. Inside the Nortel R&D
lab, we tended either to use purpose-built load generators (HP,
Spirent, Ixia, etc.) or arrays of LINUX boxes. The latter would run
Zebra or things from the RAToolset. My focus was more on control
plane convergence than raw forwarding.
We definitely didn't use anything with a GUI and wouldn't have wanted
it. Scripts are far easier for change control, regression testing,
etc. As an aside, wearing my developer hat, one of the chief
frustrations of my life is integrating products that are GUI-based.
It's very hard to drive them with external scripts or interprocess
communications through telnet or rpc.
>12:04 PM -0500 7/4/03, James.Jackson@broadwing.com wrote:
> >Agreed, if stress testing you'll want to use 64 byte packets in order to
>>maximize pps before you hit bandwidth limitations. Similarly it's fair to
>>say that figures you see stated for pps were achieved with small packets
>but
>>this does not imply a direct correlation between packet size and pps
>>performance. If on the other hand you're trying to simulate typical
>internet
>>traffic you can use the rough 7:4:1 distribution for 64 byte, 512 byte,
>1500
>>byte respectively.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>James
>Do look at http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2544.txt for standard
>benchmark methodology.
>
>As an aside, but appropriate for this being the CCIE list, it would
>strike me that performing and explaining a benchmark would be a very
>reasonable test requirement. Might be a case study on the written.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:26 GMT-3