This chart also is missing the load under which the performance results were gathered. The more processing the device must perform, the more likely its ability to process requests will degrade as load increases. We've seen products that can serve 10 users and perform like champions, but they fail to maintain performance levels when forced to serve 50 users. You'd never know it from the charts on the data sheet.
Changing the performance charts' scale can also make a product's numbers look more appealing. Consider the "Throughput Comparison" chart for Products A, B, and C. It appears that Product A has much better throughput than its competitors, but closer examination shows that the differences are actually quite small. Vendors create this optical illusion by using a scale that exaggerates the performance differences. If a scale of 0 to 1,000 Mbps were used, the difference in throughput capabilities between the products would appear minimal (and, in fact, it's less than
3 percent from best to worst). By using a scale of 850 to 900 Mbps, however, Product A appears to have much higher throughput.
2. False Precision
"Can be up and running in an average of 23 minutes."
Discover the benefits of scalable backbone and network services for application and cloud providers.
Network automation is gaining momentum. Here's how you can drive this powerful technology to its full potential.
Subsea cable alternatives can provide a level of comfort for those concerned about disruptions. Realistically, they will continue to play a small, but critical role in the short term.
