Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:10:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Decision in Router Purchase Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.961114165438.15407M-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net> In-Reply-To: <199611141657.LAA25717@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, dennis wrote: > thinking can be a bad thing for some.. Especially Dennis ;-) So he doesn't bother. > >> the riscomm design is about the same age.....so whats your point? We > > > >RISCOM/N2 REV D -- February 1996. > > the boards were designed in the early 90's, thinking man, they just keep > finding bugs......we're on Rev A because we did it right the first time! We > also know that the board itself is only a small part of the big picture...the > software is much more important to stability and value added functionality. Dennis, your software was not stable. It was very unreliable. Certain features just did not work. > >No. We manufacture boards on occasion. We are aware that there have > >been many advances in the last four years. Perhaps you aren't. > > The only "advances" with the Riscomm is that is used to not work very well, > and now it is better. Get yourself a Rev A N2 board and see what an abortion > it was......... We have quite a few N2Ds. The new designs are clearly better. For one thing, they now use daughterboards with positive retention. They still only occupy one slot. Their documentation has been substantially improved. Their software is quite stable. > >We had support problems because the cards did not work when used as > >specified in the manual, because compression didn't compress, because > >use of the cards caused system panics, and because calls to your company > >for support resulted in just the sort of bad-tempered response we are > >seeing right now. > > I told you you couldnt compress BSD ping packets with our algorithm, and > that the You didn't listen to what we were saying. We told you that we had bought the boards for evaluation and that we would buy a lot more if the evaluation was successful. We did not select the ET cards because (a) the hardware design was poor (the bowed daughterboards, the short connectors, the use of two slots), (b) the documentation did not match the product, (c) the software was unreliable, (d) the attitude at "support" was amazing, and (e) compression didn't work. We did comparative checks by moving large data files across 64K lines between two cities in the UK. One of the lines was handled by a pair of ACC Niles. The Niles achieved roughly 50% compression: with compression on, the files were transferred in half the time. The ET cards achieved perhaps 8-10% compression: the files were transferred in 90-92% of the time. Compression was not the major factor in the decision. The N2d software doesn't compress either -- but SDL don't claim to have working compression. You did. And after we bought three boards we were told that compression is a "feature", which in your version of English appears to me that it doesn't have to work as described. > compression couldnt compete with specialized compression routers. Compression > is a "feature". You also refused to send me your config files and that We did not refuse to send anything. > you didn't have the thing configured correctly (ala the panics). You never did > what I asked you to do...I can't help those that dont want it. Other > not-so-thinking > people did fine with the manuals provided We did fairly extensive checking. When you occasionally stopped ranting at us and sent coherent instructions we followed them. At the time we were evaluating alternatives. The bottom line is that we did not choose to buy any further ET products because the ET cards came in third in our evaluation. Your attitude did not help, of course. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.961114165438.15407M-100000>