Originally Posted by TJS (Post 35266691)

Which is the better cmts motorola or cisco? :)

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35266665)

The only evidence I have is doing a HTTP, TLS or SFTP download test with 10-20 streams may only hit 20mbps while sending a single 50mbps UDP stream results in 50mbps data received with minimal loss.

i.e. TCP = ~2mbps per stream, UDP = 50mbps per stream.

Originally Posted by horseman (Post 35266931)

With VM's current configuration :
3 d/s bonded channels = Cisco 10012
4 d/s bonded channels = Motorola BSR 64000

Which is better for what?

BSR 64k is newer kit and can utilise TX32 decoupled downstream modules and RX48 decoupled upstream modules which can gives better flexibility for scalable expansion, smaller physical,power consumption and improved cost/bandwidth profiles.

However it depends on when and how much VM are deploying - you need someone like Igni to give a more authoritative and comprehensive outline of what is out there and how VM are likely to utilise it…..

I only asked whether you might be on Moto kit because of the flat delay line on your u/s capacity that seemed (in my very limited experience) uncharacteristic of Cisco, but obviously the u/s load on your port must presumably be (very) low….. ;)

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------



….and just to "muddy-the-waters" further a significant difference between single and multistreamed test could also be indicative of congestion! ;)

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35266913)

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Kaspersky+Speedtest

http://blog.ookla.com/2011/05/02/the-kaspersky-effect/

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=151143&st=0&p=1216815

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php...st=0&p=1283685

So, confirmed by Google, Speedtest.net's makers, and Kaspersky's own moderators. Proof is all over the place if your lazy ass could only be bothered to look for it. I'd quote my own tests too but you seem like the kind of guy who's too ignorant to listen either way.

Originally Posted by Failswitch (Post 35267008)

Once again if you actually bothered to read what you linked to the issue is down to Kaspersky Internet Security and it's network traffic scanning module and has nothing to do with Kaspersky Anti-Virus.