Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective



Gourgen;
 
Thanks for the comments. Have you heard EDC in general term can be built totally passive with its simplest form comsumpting almost no power? 
 
I am in line with you to various other interfaces only if they can provide the cheapest possible solutions.   
 
I am leaving for the mtg, lets talk more there.
 
Regards
Frank

From: Gourgen Oganessyan [mailto:gourgen@quellan.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:33 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective

Frank,

 

With all due respect I cannot say that I have observed the trend you are speaking of. In fact, several of my own customers have dropped EDC and moved toward simpler limiting type ports. There are also simpler linear solutions getting traction that do the job for everything except LRM reaches.

 

I also would be interested in understanding what is implied by minimum extra power consumption. A simple survey of available IC’s shows ~ 200 mW (absolute best case, comparing 0.065 um apples with 0.13 um oranges, otherwise a fair comparison is probably 400 mW) per SFP+ channel extra for chips with EDC, compared to chips without. 200 mW per port for a 48 port switch is close to 10 Watt. And you will have more than one pizza box in a datacenter, I am sure.

 

Now that’s assuming LRM type EDC, so with a light version that supposedly we can now do with I know you guys are saying it won’t be as much, but then the burden is on you folks to demonstrate this. Because otherwise the concept ingrained in a lot of folks minds, including myself is EDC = lots of power

 

I do agree with Ali though, to have several interfaces, one XFI-like, and some SFI and KR like ones as well for other PMDs.

 

Best

 

Gourgen Oganessyan

 

Strategic Marketing Manager

Quellan Inc.

Phone: (408)-625-2196 (voicemail)          

               (630)-802-0574 (cell)

Fax:     (630)-364-5724

e-mail: gourgen@quellan.com

 


From: Frank Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:44 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective

 

Petar;

 

I donot disagree with your viewpoint, but my thinking this argument is really an application call to the industry. 

 

If you hint that the significant more power is brought up by required EDC circuit, then I disagree with that. As we know from various mtg discussions, we are not talking about the complicate circuitry such as the one for LRM, which seems unnecessarily overkill for such case. It should be very simple type of equalization circuit, its extra power consumption could still remain minimum, while could be well compensated by extra perf. margin, much better yield, in addition to the flexibility and simplicity in system adjustment because of implementing it.

 

Also I donot think we are in a position trying to avoid the use of EDC. The trend shows that it could possibly become one standard feature in PHY IC offering. Take the SFP+ as an example, even the SR version is taking its advantage for extra margin, system robustness, less BOM etc etc. This could be beyond the question regarding the incremental power & complexity/cost related to that.  

 

Regards

Frank

 


From: Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:20 PM
To: Frank Chang
Cc: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective

Frank,

You are missing my point. Even the best case stat, no matter how you twist it in your favor, is based on distances from yesterday. New servers are much smaller, require shorter interconnect distances. I wish you could come to see the room where current #8  on the top500 list of supercomputers is (Rpeak 114 GFlops), maybe you'll understand then.

Instead of trying to design something that uses more power and goes unnecessarilly longer distances, we should focus our effort towards designing energy efficient, small footprint,  cost effective modules.

Regards,

Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

e-mail: petarp@us.ibm.com
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:        (914)-945-4134


Frank Chang <ychang@VITESSE.COM>

03/14/2008 09:23 PM

Please respond to
Frank Chang <ychang@VITESSE.COM>

To

STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

cc

 

Subject

Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective

 

 

 




Petar;
 
Depending on the sources of link statistics, 100m OM3 reach objective actually covers from 70% to 90% of the links, so we are talking about that 100m isnot even close to 95% coverage.    
 
Regards
Frank


From: Petar Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@US.IBM.COM]
Sent:
Friday, March 14, 2008 5:09 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Re: [802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective


Hello Jonathan,


While I am sympathetic with your view of the objectives, I disagree and oppose changing the current reach objective of 100m over OM3 fiber.


From my previous standards experience, I believe that all the difficulties arise in the last 0.5 dB or 1dB of the power budget (as well as jitter budget). It is worthwhile to ask module vendors how much would their yield improve if they are given 0.5 or 1 dB. It is responsible for most yield hits, making products much more expensive.
I believe that selecting specifications that penalize 95% of the customers to benefit 5% is a wrong design point.


You make another point - that larger data centers have higher bandwidth needs. While it is true that the bandwidth needs increase, you fail to mention is that the distance needs today are less than on previous server generations, since the processing power today is much more densely packed than before.


I believe that 100m is more than sufficient to address our customers' needs.  


Sincerely.


Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218 (mail)
1101 Kitchawan Road, Rte. 134 (shipping)
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

e-mail: petarp@us.ibm.com
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax:        (914)-945-4134

Jonathan Jew <jew@j-and-m.com>

03/14/2008 01:32 PM

Please respond to
jew@j-and-m.com

 

To

STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

cc

 

Subject

[802.3BA] Longer OM3 Reach Objective


I am a consultant with over 25 years experience in data  center
infrastructure design and data center relocations including in excess of 50
data centers totaling 2 million+ sq ft.  I am currently engaged in data
center projects for one of the two top credit card processing firms and one
of the two top computer manufacturers.

I'm concerned about the 100m OM3 reach objective, as it does not cover an
adequate number (>95%) of backbone (access-to-distribution and
distribution-to-core switch) channels for most of my clients' data centers.


Based on a review of my current and past projects, I expect that a 150m or
larger reach objective would be more suitable.  It appears that some of the
data presented by others to the task force, such as Alan Flatman's Data
Centre Link Survey supports my impression.

There is a pretty strong correlation between the size of my clients' data
centers and the early adoption of new technologies such as higher speed LAN
connectivity.   It also stands to reason that larger data centers have
higher bandwidth needs, particularly at the network core.

I strongly encourage you to consider a longer OM3 reach objective than 100m.

Jonathan Jew
President
J&M Consultants, Inc
jew@j-and-m.com

co-chair BICSI data center standards committee
vice-chair TIA TR-42.6 telecom administration subcommittee
vice-chair TIA TR-42.1.1 data center working group (during development of
TIA-942)
USTAG representative to ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC25 WG3 data center standard adhoc