Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise
-
@dashrender said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
Now this isn't saying that there is not a case to use the score other brands you might have a specific need for a certain features that does not exist in ubiquity.
Right, there are cases where you would need Cisco, for example, but not in this price range.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
Is the issue "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" an issue here.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AI5xsvnn3As/UnTEh5v4LdI/AAAAAAAAAGw/JaXfn-Ne1CM/s1600/DejaVu.jpg
-
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
-
for components like hard disk drives, i use MTBF as a metric to see what to buy.
You can check consumer devices MTBF, then find same manufacturer's enterprise version of same stuff, MTBF will typically be much higher. -
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
-
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
Correct, it's down to cost / performance at that point. Cisco is just fine (if you can get through their marketing BS and inability to understand their projects and attempts to bully the SMB) as gear IF the price is competitive. But under $3K, is there any Cisco that competes with the ERL? Cisco isn't offering features that surpass it, nor performance that keeps up. Nor even equal licensing value. So assuming equal features (which Cisco doesn't appear to offer) we have to look at price/performance. And hence why the $3K number is important, above that price range you can get Ciscos that get into a range that Ubiquiti can't keep up with. Below that, Cisco isn't providing a value proposition to consider.
That's not that Cisco offers no special value, but their core value is in support which Ubiquiti trumps with cost so low that you can have spare gear for far less than support from Cisco and failover is more valuable than support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
Which is what Ubiquiti has said about their own product. And PPS isn't always the metric that matters.
-
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
-
@stacksofplates said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
Which is what Ubiquiti has said about their own product. And PPS isn't always the metric that matters.
Correct. If there is a dispute, take it up with Ubiquiti, not me. And if you need a different measurement, then that's fine, but that needs to be tested or something.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts.
Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.
