“Hillstone . Fortinet . Juniper高端防火墙PK!”有19个回复

1. 陈怀临 于 2009-09-28 10:34 上午

   本是同根生，先煎何太急：-）。

   其实我非常期盼谁能把Juniper SRX5800和华赛的USG9300一起评估一下。

   这将是一个非常重要的PK。。。

2. 陈怀临 于 2009-09-28 1:31 下午

   这个测试很强，很专业。只是NS5200略微陈旧了一些：–）。至少可以测试ISG2000呀。。。

3. 平常心 于 2009-09-28 3:18 下午

   猛，这个居然是HillStone网站上的报告，难道清华和HillStone？？http://www.hillstonenet.com/cms/down/pdf/test_reportP.pdf
   这么公开的report，HillStone很厉害啊！

4. 浪遏飞舟 于 2009-09-29 7:12 上午

   水份很大,本身几个产品就不是同一级数的产品

5. 李克 于 2009-09-29 12:11 下午

   推荐一篇老外写的关于中国质量的文章
   One of the main differences I see always between how we do things in CCC, and how things are done in (for example) DDD, is that DDD take a long time but do things deeply and well, with great attention to quality, (for example a heavy and rigorous approach to peer reviewing of all documents, and also rigorous testing of code) .. whereas CCC do things extremely fast, but – how shall I say politely – not so well : Officially there is a quality process but in reality it is minimally applied. Reviews are more or less not done at all, Testing is not rigorous, at least as I can see where I am working now. I have repeatedly seen decisions made about what should go into the product, seemingly based on what is easiest, and without waiting for, and regardless of, results from the lab.

   I am constantly trying to observe and myself learn what part of this “cultural lack of quality” is due to CCC internal policies and pressures, and what in fact is a general “Chinese” approach. And also sometimes it is easier and more polite to point out what is wrong in someone elses work, than in our own ? … even if the problems are obviously similar and the lesson can be understood to apply also to ourselves

   The whole world knows that China’s economy continues to grow rapidly (despite the recent economic troubles), but that also has in the past been based on doing things cheaply, but well known for not being done very well. In earlier years chinese goods were based on being very cheap, and t was accepted that the quality was poor. But today China is more and more making sophisticated high technology products (for example computers, camera’s and mobile phone systems) and for these the quality must also be very high – to FULL western standards. And in fact today, Chinese production for such things is excellent quality – I myself have a computer (an HP) and a camera (a Sony) both made in China and I have no concerns about that at all

   But in other area’s, (Including in some respects, the way we do things inside CCC .. ) the quality is not yet as good as it needs to be.

   In SSS of course we see huge buildings being constructed everywhere we look. And some of them are very impressive indeed , eg The new tower.

   But if we look in detail, there are many quality defects. Many buildings in SSS (for example where I used to live) seem to have problems with water leaking through the walls, and there has been a cheap (and ugly) attempt to repair it using some sealer painted roughly on top of the tiles on the outside wall. The tiles and many other things are broken even if the building is only 3 years old. In our building (2) in LLL, there are large cracks in the walls even (for example in Jacks office), even though this building is not many years old.

   Now inside CCC even, I have been told that quality is not so important, because “labour is cheap”. But I think this is a very wrong way to think ! … on three quite separate levels

   a) China is no longer so cheap as it was, the cost of labour – especially skilled labour – is rising with each year. China costs more than India, and even India is not “outsourcing” some very low cost tasks to Africa (which has many troubles). China’s future is NOT in the low cost area,

   The success of China’s future is to each year move upwards and make ever better, higher quality more original products (not just cheap copies). The quality that China delivers today on SOME products (but many not), must applied to ALL products. Today a Santana taxi is not as good as a Mazda – yet Mazda’s are also made in China. China can do good quality, it is just a matter that management has to decide that quality matters and the management must do what is necessary to realise that.

   b) Even ignoring the cost of labour, MATERIALS and ENERGY are expensive (and become more expensive each year). It is just a waste of materials to make things badly, that will have to be repaired or replaced after just a short lifetime. In SSS for example we can often see buildings being EXTENSIVELY repaired or replaced that are less than ten years old. THIS IS A HUGE WASTE OF MATERIALS !

   In Europe we have many buildings (most ?) that are a hundred years old or more, and have only ever needed minor maintenance, modernisation of eg bathrooms and heating systems, but the structure of the building is unchanged

   c) most important : it does not matter what we think about the cost of labour in China : our customers, and the key customers we wish to have in future (for example VVV) operate in countries where the cost of labour , planning – everything – is VERY high. The production / purchase cost of the equipment (“CAPEX”) is not the issue for them, they care MOSTLY about the the installation costs and ongoing operational costs (“OPEX”). In fact this is a KEY issue and motivation for CCC to invest SPECIFICALLY in improving the OAM and RRM functionality, this is one of the most important product discriminators between the vendors, and operators consider the OAM / RRM carefully and try to estimate the lifecycle costs and system performance /utilisation .. as well as looking at the purchase price of a TRX on the contract offer

   The last days, they are remaking the road surface on many large roads in SSS (Don Fang lu, and also by JJJ). This is a huge project, many hundreds of people working with it, and they work very fast. Aside from the labour cost, this project must be using thousands of tones of materials, concrete, steel, tarmac (road). the new road layer is 20cm thick in some places, maybe more

   During Lunch I watched them for some minutes. They were placing the top layer on the road (the last 3cm). The machine moves forwards at a slow walking speed. There were many men working, walking along slowly with the machine (but mostly doing little). They did not clean the road ahead of the machine, the top layer was just placed on top of whatever was there. Some stones, some cigarettes .. but also some large plastic bags and even what seemed to be a discarded piece of clothing. Now the new road cannot stick to that. So we can expect that in a very short time, the new surface will break up and lift in those places, and will need to be repaired again. and I have seen such repairs in many places – the road is not very flat afterwards

   It seems that there is a general approach in China, to do things fast, rather than well : This is not just a CCC issue.
   But if CCC is to become more successful in premium markets (where our products can sell with higher profit margins) .. we need to improve the quality level in everything we do.

   This IS possible so we CAN do this : . I have seen many products and buildings in China that are built to true world class, I have seen many very impressive things in China.

   But it does not happen by itself, it needs an intense desire and commitment to achieve consistent top quality work at every level, in everything we do.

6. 大荣 于 2009-10-09 10:12 下午

   清华大学的这个评测比起台湾的交大的测试还是有差距，这几年不测了。以前认为台湾交大的测试报告，特别是测试方法上是亚洲乃至全球最用心的一家。这个测试报告的方法落伍了。如果肯多花些精力在测试方法上的话，可以更精彩一些。

7. michael 于 2009-10-10 1:57 上午

   开玩笑，台成清交在亚洲也是一流的排在清华北大前面的，仅次于日本的东京大 京都大而已，党国体制，学校还谈什么水平啊，都是在胡搞。

8. xiake 于 2009-10-10 3:57 上午

   楼上的李克转的老外关于质量的文章，非常认同。
   能否说一下这个的背景？
   我感觉像是ALU的某个在上海呆过的外籍工程师
   的言论。

9. 李克 于 2009-10-10 10:49 上午

   xiake，你唯一猜错的是公司，其他都正确。只要是在欧洲和中国都呆过一段时间的人，稍作深思，就能发现这个问题。但其本质要远比这个很好的老外复杂。没错，欧洲，尤其是北欧和德国的高质低速相比于中国的低质高速，本质上确实是远高效于我们的，其成功有其人种的本质、国家社会主义的思想以及历史等复杂的背景，中国现在的情况，略有点象现在要猴子变人的意思，中国现在的环境，中国人的质地，中国自己的社会现状和经济现状，给德国之类国家的质量效率造成巨大的障碍，但和猴子变人不同的是，猴子可以选择不变成人，而中国如果选择不向质量效率方向发展，中国最多停留在中等发达国家的水平，这是我们目前的发展模式的最大局限，所以对于中国，无论多大的困难，我们必须明确的象质量效率发起冲锋和挑战，这个本能至少能占国家核心竞争力的1/3，当然对于中国现在的世界环境，实在是一万年太久，只争朝夕，中国人拼了60年的命，看来还得再拼30年，伟大领袖毛主席真伟大，最有远见。

10. 李克 于 2009-10-10 11:44 上午

    并且最大的问题不是知道这个核心问题，而是如何解决这个核心问题？死棋也要解活还要成功，谁知道如何做？我的智商有限，我们希望能有圣人明君大帝出现，但这些人和真正的爱情是一样的，可遇不可求，所以就个人来讲，我唯一能做的就是自己身体力行的这样学习和工作，并鼓励和鼓吹别人，对于没有圣人大帝的时代，人民才是历史的主人，如果我们生活的在这样的时代，我们从自己救起就是在就能救民救国，当然我很相信中国作为世界人口最多的国家，圣人虽难，但奇人出世不稀奇。我想我们现在繁荣的表面，并没有真正解决核心竞争力的缺乏的问题，因为我实在是找不到我们的核心竞争力，比如举一个并不现实的例子，如果西方掐断我们的高科技和能源，我们将过上什么样的日子？我们同样掐断给西方提供的廉价轻工业产品，西方人的日子会怎样，不要被美国人写的离不开中国生活用品的文章，那是美国傻瓜再说给中国傻瓜听，如果世界不给美国能源和高科技，美国会怎样？美国可以选择自己过自己的小日子，并且仍然滋润，也可以用其无比强大的军事霸权去打去抢，所以中国现在是繁荣并不昌盛，盛名之下，外强中干

11. 陈怀临 于 2009-10-10 2:14 下午

    我个人浅见，在科技方面，要与美帝国主义有一拼的前提就是《弯曲评论》写的海外学人的50%都回到了中国。否则没有希望。

12. 阳光 于 2009-10-10 9:44 下午

    # 陈怀临 于 2009-10-10 2:14 pm

    我个人浅见，在科技方面，要与美帝国主义有一拼的前提就是《弯曲评论》写的海外学人的50%都回到了中国。否则没有希望。

    你这个希望还不如希望教育的改革来的现实，虽然一样是不可能

13. 李克 于 2009-10-10 10:16 下午

    我乐观一点，倒是觉得这两个都有可能。从自然科学和工程本身看：是质量效率和持续创新，从社会科学和政治经济军事看：是诚信，骨气，智慧和民主（反腐败），要做NO1，这些都是必不可少的

14. 老韩 于 2009-10-11 9:10 上午

    # 大荣 于 2009-10-09 10:12 pm

    清华大学的这个评测比起台湾的交大的测试还是有差距，这几年不测了。以前认为台湾交大的测试报告，特别是测试方法上是亚洲乃至全球最用心的一家。这个测试报告的方法落伍了。如果肯多花些精力在测试方法上的话，可以更精彩一些。

    原来荣总也来了，失敬失敬。原来你和老于都那么推崇NBL，不知联系过对方没有？

15. 大荣 于 2009-10-11 10:42 下午

    没有联系过。不知道于总是否联系过，我已不做测试许多年了。

16. 清华土著 于 2009-10-17 8:10 上午

    quote: 清华大学的这个评测比起台湾的交大的测试还是有差距，这几年不测了。以前认为台湾交大的测试报告，特别是测试方法上是亚洲乃至全球最用心的一家。这个测试报告的方法落伍了。如果肯多花些精力在测试方法上的话，可以更精彩一些。

    愿闻其详！

17. JK 于 2012-02-18 11:12 下午

    这份报告真丢清华大学的脸。
    一份毫无意义的报告，竟然还公示于众，清华大学什么时候开始做这种勾当了。用其他产品的普通接口和旧的硬件平台与新硬件技术来比较，你应该用我们21世纪的高铁动车与欧洲19世纪的火车比谁的速度快。

18. Movie 于 2012-02-22 9:43 下午

    也不想想Hillstone的CEO是哪所大學畢業的,清華畢業的.

19. 几楼楼长 于 2012-02-24 5:38 上午

    一堆悲剧啊