On 8/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > vijay gill > > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM > > To: John Paul Morrison > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: [ppml] too many variables > > > > I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point > isn't that the latest generation > > hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from the local hardware store is > doubling processing power every n months. > > The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then > deployed is a non trivial task. > > This is nonsense. The hardware cpu de jour that you pick up from the > local > chop shop is 1-2 years > BEHIND what the high end fileserver vendors are using. Companies like HP > go > through a qualification, > testing and verification process for their high end gear that is no less > rigorous than what Cisco uses.
I knew reading nanog was a bad idea. However, now that I am well and truly in the weeds, might as well go forth. The phrase that I think I am looking for is.... it's coming to me...almost there.... ah yes amortization specifically amortization...units sold... cost basis... something something. /vijay The big difference is that the PC vendors get the processors from Intel and > AMD when they are > in beta, and do their design and development while Intel and AMD are doing > their own > CPU design and development. So when Intel is done and ready to release, > there is little work > for the PC vendors left to do to ship complete product. > > The router vendors are approaching this like Ford and Chevy build car > computers. They can get > old Pentium 3 700Mhz chips for a few bucks a processor so that is what > they > are using. They > can make an extra $90 in profit selling a $5000 router CPU card that has a > $10 processor in it than > a $5000 router CPU card that has a $100 processor in it. And from a > marketing perspective if > the router uses some exotic RISC chip that nobody has ever heard of, > (because it's 15 year old > obsolete technology) that somewhat insulates them from unflattering > comparisons like what > people are making here. > > This kind of attitude is symptomatic of the embedded systems industry. > Price the stuff out first > THEN develop for it. This is why for example you don't have an Ethernet > jack in your automobile > that you can plug a laptop in and get a complete fault code analysis for a > vehicle failure > from an embedded webserver in the engine computer. The embedded systems > people insist on > reinventing the wheel every time they design something and do their best > to > ignore what > goes on in the PC world. > > Go ahead and make your arguments about deployment, but it is the router > vendors who are foot > dragging here. > > Ted > > >
