Re: USR TC vs. PM3 Test results

Marty Likier (marty@livingston.com)
Wed, 21 May 1997 11:25:50 -0700

At 12:22 PM 5/21/97 -0500, PM Mailing List wrote:
>
>U.S. Robotics Total Control Enterprise Network Hub
> and Livingston PortMaster 3
> Comparison Results Overview
>
>http://www.usr.com/business/30409_d.html
>
>I thought this might prove to be an interesting link. Any one have any
>comments? According to the test results, the PM3 fails miserably early on
>while the Ascend 4004 performance degrades slowly, while the TC (of
>course, this is on USR's home page) runs no problemo.

Here is my take on it. (BTW, where do you see a Ascend mentioned in this
report?)

1. Not surprisingly to me, the XXCAL report clearly documents that the
Livingston PM3 out performed (in total combined thru-put) the USR TC
chassis, at every point from a single user all the way up to 17 concurrent
users. The USR TC chassis ** never once ** uploaded or downloaded files in
speeds greater than 7000 bytes per second. The PM3 ** consistently exceeded
** 7000 bytes per second, in every instance, from a single user all the way
up to 17 concurrent users. Thank you USR for substantiating what we are
ready knew. ;-)

2. USR would have the reader believe that the PM3 reached a saturation
point at 17 concurrent users and could not process any more dial-in
connections beyond 17. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.
The real reason the PM3 did not go beyond 17 concurrent users is that the
PM3 experienced a compatibility problem with a Teleos Model 60 phone line
simulator. This compatibility problem resulted in the PM3 terminating calls
and ** does not ** represent any under achieving in performance.

3. This test was performed on a test bed, not using real-world using AT&T
or Nortel switches, but a simulator. And I know most of you all run your
networks on phone line simulators, just like the one in the report. ;-)

--
Marty Likier
Product Marketing Mgr.
marty@livingston.com