Re: [ppml] too many variables

["vijay gill" <vgill () vijaygill com>]

On 8/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm () ipinc net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces () arin net [mailto:ppml-bounces () arin net]On Behalf Of
> vijay gill
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM
> > To: John Paul Morrison
> > Cc: ppml () arin net; 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