3 ms·
Computer Architecture for Network Engineers
- crzy8676 9y agoFun fact: if you don't have an engineering degree with diff. eq., physics, etc., you're not an engineer. Your Cisco cert does not compare. Not even nearly. Fun fact two: the term "engineer" is controlled in many countries. You can't call yourself an "engineer" if you're not an engineer, in many places. The US-focus here is getting annoying.
- pcunite 9y agoI know a little about networking to appreciate the simulation table. I can't vouch for the accuracy. The author does invite critique.
- deepnotderp 9y agoA tiny nitpick, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but "in-flight" usually is used to describe an instruction in the functional units, not "in the pipeline". Other than that it's a pretty good introductory article! If you'd like something a little heartier, but still not quite Hennessy and Patterson's QCA (although I highly recommend it), try this article: http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/ http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
- Taniwha 9y agoAs a sometimes CPU architect/logic designer and also occasional protocol engineer I think that this is stretching an analogy a bit too far, individually some of the TCP A is like CPU B is probably fair, but the totality? nah
- corysama 9y agohttps://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/networks-all-the-way-down/ https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/networks-all-the-wa... https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/networks-all-the-way-down-part-2/ https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/networks-all-the-wa...
- ltwdm 9y agoIt is indeed a good way of looking at architecture and networking. But to me it is more of a hindsight tool or validation of things you already know, than a learning resource for someone who doesn't know details of architecture.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- peterburkimsher 9y agoI really like the analogy. If you do make the talk/tutorial with some pretty graphics to show the comparison, then I'd like to watch it!