[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::fddi

Title:	FDDI - The Next Generation

Moderator:	NETCAD::STEFANI

Created:	Thu Apr 27 1989
Last Modified:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	2259
Total number of notes:	8590

1547.0. "What FDDI Analyser is best?" by 50202::65477::LEHL () Wed Jan 04 1995 17:39

    Hello,
    
    can anyone recommend a good FDDI-Analyser? Best would bw a PC-Based
    Product like our IRIS.
    
    Regards
    Christoph Lehl

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1547.1	heres an opinion on some	COMICS::WEBSTERC		`Thu Jan 05 1995 11:11`	37
	I'll offer my opinion on the ones I have seen and used (none of whch are cheap!) I'm sure there are others on the market. network general :- PC based, easy to drive, excellent protocol decodes, good "expert" protocol analysis. Not so good at low level stuff. The sniffer seems to be more or less the industry standard. The sniffer is really just a software package+dedicated PC interfaces for each media. Just about any PC platform can host the cards, so it could be a desktop or any portable with ISA slots. HP Network Advisor:- Dedicated PC platform with HP's own windows system. No so easy to drive as the sniffer, but with the best package I seen for monitoring network activity graphically. Protocol decodes are pretty good. Has the advantage that you can have multiple windows open at the same time giving different viewpoints (e.g. protocol mix vs. high talkers) of the network. The HP is the least robust of the three, with very plasticy casing. W&G:- Another dedicated PC platform. By far the most unfriendly interface I have ever seen on a piece of test equipment! The W&G has a protocol decode engine that is loaded with the application you want to run, so to switch between applications or media is a pain. Furthermore, each application is slightly different. The DA30 model has two protocol engines and can trace two differnet media type at the same time. The big advantage is the very robust chassis can hold up to four line cards at the same time. The range of protocol decodes is OK. I was onsite recently with a W&G and also an HP. The HP was able to detect things that the W&G could not, in this case, frames with short pre-ambles. Given unlimited money, I would choose a sniffer for a easy to use and configure box to go to site with, and the HP if site based.
1547.2		CSC32::B_GOODWIN	MCI Mission Critical Support Team	`Thu Jan 05 1995 14:30`	3
	W&G has improved it's interface. It is a windowing interface and is much easier to use and it now has a color screen.
1547.3	HP- better than nothing...	PFSVAX::MCELWEE	Opponent of Oppression	`Sun Jan 08 1995 01:28`	6
	FWIW- I found the HP totally unable to capture a beaconing ring failure. It stopped recording at the critical point. It also corrupted a critical file which rendered the unit inoperable until a new image was downloaded from the HP support center while on lease. Bottom line- not impressed with HP's PHY level diagnosis.
1547.4	Probably a Sniffer	NETCAD::B_CRONIN		`Tue Jan 10 1995 15:40`	12
	Some of this depends on what you need to do. If you just want to look at frames, and not have to fully analyze a ring, the Network General Sniffer is useful. If you look at line states, a DTI is the only thing I trust. If you can handle all of the dumb errors, and learn the workarounds, the tekelec is OK, but its user interface is close in stupidity to the W&G. If you want to flood a ring with lots of frames, the W&G works well. My guess is that you want to use a Sniffer for most of your everyday needs.