 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: #com v&#8217;s Cisco</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/com-vs-cisco/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/com-vs-cisco/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 04:11:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: andortech</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/com-vs-cisco/#comment-59900</link>
		<dc:creator>andortech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-59900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also agree with the 3Com over cisco.  You will get more bang for your buck.  Also if you stack (IE put in the redundant) fabric you will bump up to 144gb as they make the second fabric active and not passsive like most.

In addition I have to say the HP command line is very similar to Cisco and their web management interface is excellent.  An hp 8200 might want to be a consideration as well as the fabric is 960gb. AND A LIFETIME WARRANTY!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also agree with the 3Com over cisco.  You will get more bang for your buck.  Also if you stack (IE put in the redundant) fabric you will bump up to 144gb as they make the second fabric active and not passsive like most.</p>
<p>In addition I have to say the HP command line is very similar to Cisco and their web management interface is excellent.  An hp 8200 might want to be a consideration as well as the fabric is 960gb. AND A LIFETIME WARRANTY!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mortree</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/com-vs-cisco/#comment-43450</link>
		<dc:creator>mortree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-43450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes look at fabric/backplane speeds of core switches first. Many switches let you add modules way beyond what the fabric can handle. 

The 3Com looks good because total 720Gbpps of dual fabric doesn&#039;t reach max packets until the packet size drops to an average of about 200 bytes per packet. So it is all usable speed. Too bad it is split over dual fabric...though I guess that does give you redundancy.

The Cisco needs that 720 Supervisor Engine to match it...maybe. I didn&#039;t see packet handling for Cisco or how many fabrics that speed was split among. Let me guess this is more expensive?

I am wondering if you really want to continue to take growing VoIP onto your Core though. I have been hearing more and more that the volume of growing VoIP traffic is too hard to predict and control. I keep hearing that companies are looking at splitting VoIP off from data in network cores around datacenters. I guess the philosophy is that &quot;yes we can save lots of money on wiring from the distribution level downwards. But really it is worth a few more coins in the core to split the wiring or use optical mixers on common fiber to keep core data flowing smoothly.&quot;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes look at fabric/backplane speeds of core switches first. Many switches let you add modules way beyond what the fabric can handle. </p>
<p>The 3Com looks good because total 720Gbpps of dual fabric doesn&#8217;t reach max packets until the packet size drops to an average of about 200 bytes per packet. So it is all usable speed. Too bad it is split over dual fabric&#8230;though I guess that does give you redundancy.</p>
<p>The Cisco needs that 720 Supervisor Engine to match it&#8230;maybe. I didn&#8217;t see packet handling for Cisco or how many fabrics that speed was split among. Let me guess this is more expensive?</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really want to continue to take growing VoIP onto your Core though. I have been hearing more and more that the volume of growing VoIP traffic is too hard to predict and control. I keep hearing that companies are looking at splitting VoIP off from data in network cores around datacenters. I guess the philosophy is that &#8220;yes we can save lots of money on wiring from the distribution level downwards. But really it is worth a few more coins in the core to split the wiring or use optical mixers on common fiber to keep core data flowing smoothly.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mortree</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/com-vs-cisco/#comment-43451</link>
		<dc:creator>mortree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-43451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes look at fabric/backplane speeds of core switches first. Many switches let you add modules way beyond what the fabric can handle. 

The 3Com looks good because total 720Gbpps of dual fabric doesn&#039;t reach max packets until the packet size drops to an average of about 200 bytes per packet. So it is all usable speed. Too bad it is split over dual fabric...though I guess that does give you redundancy.

The Cisco needs that 720 Supervisor Engine to match it...maybe. I didn&#039;t see packet handling for Cisco or how many fabrics that speed was split among. Let me guess this is more expensive?

I am wondering if you really want to continue to take growing VoIP onto your Core though. I have been hearing more and more that the volume of growing VoIP traffic is too hard to predict and control. I keep hearing that companies are looking at splitting VoIP off from data in network cores around datacenters. I guess the philosophy is that &quot;yes we can save lots of money on wiring from the distribution level downwards. But really it is worth a few more coins in the core to split the wiring or use optical mixers on common fiber to keep core data flowing smoothly.&quot;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes look at fabric/backplane speeds of core switches first. Many switches let you add modules way beyond what the fabric can handle. </p>
<p>The 3Com looks good because total 720Gbpps of dual fabric doesn&#8217;t reach max packets until the packet size drops to an average of about 200 bytes per packet. So it is all usable speed. Too bad it is split over dual fabric&#8230;though I guess that does give you redundancy.</p>
<p>The Cisco needs that 720 Supervisor Engine to match it&#8230;maybe. I didn&#8217;t see packet handling for Cisco or how many fabrics that speed was split among. Let me guess this is more expensive?</p>
<p>I am wondering if you really want to continue to take growing VoIP onto your Core though. I have been hearing more and more that the volume of growing VoIP traffic is too hard to predict and control. I keep hearing that companies are looking at splitting VoIP off from data in network cores around datacenters. I guess the philosophy is that &#8220;yes we can save lots of money on wiring from the distribution level downwards. But really it is worth a few more coins in the core to split the wiring or use optical mixers on common fiber to keep core data flowing smoothly.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 3/10 queries in 0.052 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 295/301 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-24 05:02:11 -->