From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 25 15:07:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA16851 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 15:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA16845 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 15:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id HAA17255; Sun, 26 May 1996 07:07:24 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:07:24 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Andrew McRae cc: dennis@etinc.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The view from here (was Re: ISDN Compression Load on CPU) In-Reply-To: <199605251840.LAA08624@doberman.cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 May 1996, Andrew McRae wrote: > number are talking about here? Generally the bottleneck is > CPU performance, not the bus bandwidth. Cisco's performance > numbers *are* measured values, *not* calculated theoretical numbers. What CPU's are Cisco using these days? Are they still 68000's? They were a good choice a while back, but there must be some "moving to the next generation" pains now. I heard there's porting work being done to Intel because of the Compaq deal. I guess Cisco wants to take a stab at the high volume market. -mh