Network OptimizationThis newsletter is sponsored by SymantecNetwork World's Network Optimization Newsletter, 10/25/07WAN optimization technology makes waves at Interop New YorkBy Ann BednarzWAN optimization players flocked to the East Coast this week for Interop New York, which wraps up Friday. Executives from companies including Blue Coat Systems, Cisco, Exinda Networks, Expand Networks, Ipanema Technologies, Packeteer, Riverbed Technology and Strangeloop Networks took part in the conference, sharing insights about emerging technologies and strategies for improving application performance over the wide area. The exposition floor at Interop New York -- which is about half the size of the flagship Las Vegas version of Interop -- also provided a backdrop for a slew of product unveilings. Here are some of the highlights:
* Riverbed tunes devices for disaster recovery jobs * Coyote Point bolsters SMB offerings * Avistar demos hosted videoconferencing service In the next newsletter I’ll cover another vendor that made headlines from Interop New York: Juniper Networks, which upgraded the security and management features in its WX and WXC application acceleration platforms.
|
Contact the author: Ann Bednarz is an associate news editor at Network World responsible for editing daily news content. She previously covered enterprise applications, e-commerce and telework trends for Network World. E-mail Ann. This newsletter is sponsored by SymantecARCHIVEArchive of the Network Optimization Newsletter. BONUS FEATUREIT PRODUCT RESEARCH AT YOUR FINGERTIPS Get detailed information on thousands of products, conduct side-by-side comparisons and read product test and review results with Network World’s IT Buyer’s Guides. Find the best solution faster than ever with over 100 distinct categories across the security, storage, management, wireless, infrastructure and convergence markets. Click here for details. PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS AVAILABLE International subscribers, click here. SUBSCRIPTION SERVICESTo subscribe or unsubscribe to any Network World newsletter, change your e-mail address or contact us, click here. This message was sent to: networking.world@gmail.com. Please use this address when modifying your subscription. Advertising information: Write to Associate Publisher Online Susan Cardoza Network World, Inc., 118 Turnpike Road, Southborough, MA 01772 Copyright Network World, Inc., 2007 |
Riverbed vs Cisco
ReplyDeleteCisco WAAS has a way to go in my opinion.
Here are a handful of key reasons why I feel Riverbed beats Cisco.
Speed
• Cisco only has CIFS application-specific optimization (what about MAPI, HTTP, SSL, NFS, SQL, Oracle?)
• Cisco has separate ‘TCP’ optimization and ‘CIFS’ caching implementations – muddled approach
Scale
• No large-scale reference deployments – Riverbed has dozens
• Data store is per peer as opposed to universal
• No software client for mobile workers
Simplicity
• Cisco requires 95 steps to set up WAAS; Riverbed = 22
• Cisco network transparency approach can cause routing or troubleshooting problems; and CIFS is not transparent!
• “Integrated” router blade has separate management & setup
Cisco is really a caching device, Riverbed does not cache files, it accelerates apps at the bit level and stores references not the actual file. Caching is not efficient (especially as you scale it in a mesh, MPLS type environment). Caching only addresses files not email, web, and other apps. In a cache, if the file is changed then the file is cold again and has to be resent across WAN. Also, if you rename a file it again is cold and must be resent to the other side even though that data exists on the cache already.
Stick with best of breed. Riverbed Steelhead Appliances
Justin Lofton
Systems Engineer
Tredent Data Systems, Inc.
justinl@tredent.com
http://www.tredent.com
Riverbed vs Cisco
ReplyDeleteCisco WAAS has a way to go in my opinion.
Here are a handful of key reasons why I feel Riverbed beats Cisco.
Speed
• Cisco only has CIFS application-specific optimization (what about MAPI, HTTP, SSL, NFS, SQL, Oracle?)
• Cisco has separate ‘TCP’ optimization and ‘CIFS’ caching implementations – muddled approach
Scale
• No large-scale reference deployments – Riverbed has dozens
• Data store is per peer as opposed to universal
• No software client for mobile workers
Simplicity
• Cisco requires 95 steps to set up WAAS; Riverbed = 22
• Cisco network transparency approach can cause routing or troubleshooting problems; and CIFS is not transparent!
• “Integrated” router blade has separate management & setup
Cisco is really a caching device, Riverbed does not cache files, it accelerates apps at the bit level and stores references not the actual file. Caching is not efficient (especially as you scale it in a mesh, MPLS type environment). Caching only addresses files not email, web, and other apps. In a cache, if the file is changed then the file is cold again and has to be resent across WAN. Also, if you rename a file it again is cold and must be resent to the other side even though that data exists on the cache already.
Stick with best of breed. Riverbed Steelhead Appliances
Justin Lofton
Systems Engineer
Tredent Data Systems, Inc.
justinl@tredent.com
http://www.tredent.com