"With all due respect, are you part of presales department?"
Laugh - hardly!
". . . this is not the point of this discussion, the problem is slow FTP transfer . . ."
Indeed, although the OP, I don't believe, considered such as specific to a Cisco switch as the host, but between a pair of servers using a WAN, implying the problem was not seen on the LAN.
In your OP, you noted also finding slow FTP transfers to Cisco switches due to their slow flash write speeds. However you also noted this as an (implied) poor design by Cisco to allow usage of inexpensive flash.
All possibly true, but my first response noted if flash was slow, it most likely because Cisco (unlike you) didn't/doesn't see a (market) need for a faster flash. Further, I noted, some of poor FTP performance you found might not be just due to flash write speeds but also due to default RWIN and non-PMTUD settings. Which although I didn't mention that in that post, can also apply to high speed links on LANs, too.
Then in your next post you note how HP does it better and how Cisco's flash choice " is really a wrong way to go ".
You're certainly allowed such an opinion, and in my next post, I tried to describe how you have a market choice. Basically, again, if you consider this an important feature, chose a vendor who provides what you want. But, if Cisco's choice was really wrong, they should suffer market loss.
Personally, I don't recall ever seeing a RFP with specifications for FTP speeds to a network device (laugh - nor have a seen one asking for the chassis to be painted in a certain color - certainly also another "wrong way to go" - if I cannot obtain devices that match my decor).
Again you have a right to your opinion that Cisco's design choice "literally sucks" regarding their flash write speeds, and can also suggest they should provide better. But, also again, I hope you're free to make your choice of network vendor. Heck, if you feel this is such a key feature, with others, not being provided by any vendor, feel empowered to start your own network hardware company.
I suspect, if you do (start your own company), then you might find it's not easy having no one believe you're doing it wrong or what you're doing sucks.
BTW, for the record, my experience pre-dates Cisco. I mention that because I've seen Cisco grow from a "Cisco who?", to the 800 pound gorilla.
I believe Cisco has grown, as it has, for two reasons. First, their equipment usually does what it's documented to do. Second, if their equipment doesn't work as documented, they usually fix it. My experience with other vendors has been, on those two points, finding them more hit or miss.
