Philippe Cayphas (pc @
godel2 .
bim .
be) writes:
> Data Communications has performed a very interesting comparison of a lot of
> firewalls.
> Let's say that Raptor product was not the best. Far away.
>
> This study can be found at :
> http://www.data.com/Lab_Tests/Firewalls.html
The test tools used by Data Communications in the preparation of the article
that you cite created an unnaturally high connection rate when attempting
to configure all virtual clients. This high connection rate exposed a minor
bug in Raptor's Generic Service Passer (one that had never impacted any
customer), causing the _test configuration_ to fail. The actual tests,
which generated a more realistic (but still high) connection load were not
performed during that testing.
Raptor fixed the bug and retested at NSTL (where the original testing was
performed) on the same hardware, using the exact original test tools and
scenarios. On retest, the Eagle (running on a SPARC 5) performed better
than all firewalls tested for the original article. A SPARC 20 Eagle
that was tested for comparison purposes was literally off the chart,
serving up to 1200 "transactions per minute", while the chart published
in the original article stopped at 900 tpm.
An update which mentions all this appeared in a recent (March 1996)
Data Communications issue.
Brien Wheeler
Software Engineer
Raptor Systems, Inc.
|
|
