Fun 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.
A 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/
As 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
It 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.
8 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 30.9 ms ] threadFun 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.
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/
https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/networks-all-the-wa...