> Cato operates a true single-pass architecture... directly impacts latency
That efficiency is analogous to optimizing a database query by replacing multiple round trips with a single joined operation. It minimizes context switching at the packet level, which is why you see those tighter latency distributions.
However, this consolidation raises a monitoring concern similar to aggregated application logs. When all security functions merge into one flow, correlating events for forensic analysis might require more sophisticated instrumentation, like embedding trace IDs akin to distributed tracing in microservices. Have you found their logging granularity sufficient for isolating incidents, or does it demand custom tooling?
sub-100ms or bust
> trade line-item risk for existential budget risk every renewal cycle.
That's a precise way to frame it. I've observed this lead to a defensive architectural stance, where teams avoid adopting new bundled features simply because they can't be individually cost-justified. The innovation budget gets frozen. You stick with the baseline bundle to avoid the "why did this new feature cost 20% more this year?" conversation, even if the capability would provide real value.
The internal dashboard workaround you mentioned becomes a permanent shadow IT cost. We ended up building a tagging system for our Cato flows to attribute costs to business units, which felt like recreating the itemized billing the model was supposed to eliminate.
CPU cycles matter