X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C86537.57FCC9E7@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:02:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: cougar-heavy or jaguar?
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:02:55 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0812AE36@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080131120247.34237be3@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: cougar-heavy or jaguar?
Thread-Index: AchkREBkQz7Ro1X9QJWiZRaoIVyuOgAABeEw
References: <20080131120247.34237be3@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Brian Stark" <brian.stark@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

Yes, I've looked at Octeon in the past and it looks very good on paper.
If we were sticking with MIPS, it would probably be at the top of the
list.  However, from what I'm hearing from some folks at Cisco, the part
has not performed as advertised.


Brian

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp=20
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:03 PM
> To: Brian Stark
> Subject: cougar-heavy or jaguar?
>=20
> This seems like a perfectly suitable processor for cougar-2 or jaguar.
> 12 cores, 900MHz, TCP acceleration, hardware checksumming,=20
> integrated GigE, PCIe, etc.  A single chip could house=20
> management, FP and TXRX functionality.  Would be S-X=20
> compatible and so on, plus very low power.
> I'm guessing you've looked at this one in the past, what did=20
> you think?
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> a
>=20
> http://www.caviumnetworks.com/OCTEON-Plus_CN57XX.html
>=20
