On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:55:05 PDT, "Christopher J. Wolff" said:
So, if all other elements (software, customer support, and management) are equal, what router hardware architecture will contribute to a positive or negative user experience? In other words, if the routing device between my workstation and server is a Juniper M7 instead of Pentium IV running unix-flavor-of-the-day, how will that affect the quality of user experience?
It depends. Which part of "gestalt" do you not understand? :) Right now, the very first hop off my laptop is a dialup that connected at 44K. The router architecture is the least of my concerns :) Better/shorter copper that let it connect at 56K, or getting DSL/cable connectivity would make more difference.. (Of course, once I get to my office and connect at 100mbit, it might start mattering ;) In general, whatever router is in use, be it Juniper or Pentium or Gerbil, will either keep up with the offered packets/sec, or it won't. If it doesn't keep up, packets get dropped and retransmit timers pop, irritating the user. If it *does* keep up, then your end-to-end latency is basically switching delays and speed-of-light delays - so the user cares more about the *number* and *distance* than the actual architecture. 8 hops that include a trip through a Juniper in Iceland is worse than 2 hops through PC-class hardware to the next town over (unless the next town over is, in fact, Reykjavik ;) And remember - the business goal isn't to maximize the user experience, it's to to find the cheapest configuration that still lets you avoid having to pay penalties for not meeting the SLA. Of course, if your user base is $9.95/mo Joe Sixpacks, you really don't have the revenue stream to support a user experience any better than "sorta works most of the time"....