The Web browser - a Universal Tool
The solutions from Raritan, Avocent and Minicom are easy to use through the web browser. Minicom stands out - although not in a god way - since its client program only is available as Active X controllers, so you have to use Internet Explorer and Windows.
With our scenario in mind, we believe that the solutions from Avocent and Minicom have the best administrative interfaces. Even if Dominion KX216 has more settings than DSR-1031, it's more complex as well. In our opinion Raritan's advantage is the previously mentioned external authentication.
Minicom KVM.net Manager's interface was adequate, but sometimes a bit irrational and limited, especially since some of the interface controls where locked without explanation.
With five different products and five different network protocols we couldn't have wished for a better starting field in this test. Except Servswitch CX, which uses the VNC protocol, the test includes four proprietary protocols.
Almost Like Working Locally
With the best possible network conditions, up to one gigabit bandwidth available, and next to no network troubles, Avocent DSR-1031 and Minicom PX (contains the KVM part of Minicom's solution) excelled. With these solutions it was almost like working on a local terminal, and we were pleasantly surprised that it went so well. An interesting point is that we noticed large discrepancies in bandwidth usage between the solutions. In our test DSR-1031 used 22 megabits per second with the highest quality. Minicom's solution barely used a fourth of that amount. If this might be an issue, depends on how the network is put together and how much bandwidth it uses for other things. DSR-1031 was the best solution, even when we limited the bandwidth to two megabit per second.
Slow Pace with Rose and Raritan
Rose Ultra Matrix Remote and Raritan Dominion KX216 had the slowest response times and the update rates. In the case of Dominion KX216 it might be due to the solution's economic use of bandwidth. Raritan seems to have prioritised bandwidth before impact.
"The test lab network was far too good for this test"
Ultra Matrix Remote's bandwidth management isn't very efficient, with one exception: when we downscaled our client window it was the only product which modified the transferred data in any way.
When the client window was scaled down to a fourth, the bandwidth usage was a third compared to a full-sized window. It's not that important for the general administrator, but it's not hard to recognize the benefits for certain applications, such as video surveillance.
Network Errors
Our test lab network was far too good for this test, so we had get help from some experts. Testtools were kind enough to supply us with a Packerstorm Hurricane. It's a nice little machine which made it possible for us to cause disturbances in our network for ten minutes, just like we wanted. After ten minutes with this machine we started thinking about getting one installed permanently in our test lab.
Can you still trust KVM over IP when a virus has taken over the network causing all around chaos? It's obvious that we need a local terminal separate from the network if the circumstances are really bad, but the longer we can run IP, the better. In the test Minicom had the most robust protocol, and the traffic flow was pretty good, even with two percent in packet losses, five percent packets in the wrong order, and a delay of 25 milliseconds. It's fortunate for Minicom, since their solution is the only one in the test without a local port. If disaster strikes you have to lay out cables in the server room.
Raritan came in last in this test. It was the only solution which lost the network connection during serious networks problems.
