Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
It's true that servers will need 100Gbps throughput for LAN & SAN I/O in
5-8 years but the question is whether 100GbE will be a better value
(cost, power, size) than a combination of other technologies (e.g.
10GbE, 10/40Gbps Fibre Channel, 40Gbps Infiniband). Currently server
OEMs are deploying combinations of 1, 2, & 4 Gbps technologies to cover
their needs because 10GbE is too expensive for mass server deployment
and GbE doesn't meet their performance requirements today.
In the future, if we had 40GbE interim step for servers (which we think
we can manufacture cost effectively several years before 100GbE), we
wouldn't have to invest in all of the other technologies to bridge the
gap.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@FINISAR.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:02 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
Key architects from the three major server manufacturers (SUN, IBM, HP)
have stated that servers will need 100GE ports starting 5 to 8 years
from now (see page 3 of my Broad Market Potential presentation from the
March HSSG meeting, and Muller's presentation from the January HSSG
meeting.) It is diificult to see how starting to develop technology that
will migrate into this market can be characterized as departing from
reality.
-----Original Message-----
From: OJHA,JUGNU [mailto:jugnu.ojha@AVAGOTECH.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:32 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
Matt, to address your point about BMP for 40G, I can't help but think it
ironic when even the strongest proponents of 100G say that they do not
see a market for more than 100's to 1000's of links in the next 5+
years. We departed from reality long ago....
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Traverso [mailto:matt.traverso@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:27 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [HSSG] 40G MAC Rate Discussion
I'd like to comment from an optical component / module vendor point of
view.
Personally I'm not convinced that broad market potential has been
demonstrated, but... Operating under the assumption that the 40GbE
broad market potential is verified with end user input:
- As we heard/saw in Jack Jewel's presentation focused on the cost &
reliability of the MMF objective, extending from a 1x10G VCSEL to a
10x10G VCSEL does not represent a linear cost increase -- similarly a
4x10G would only be an incremental increase
- The dominant cost in a nx10G MMF interface is likely to be any
premium charged for the interface IC as well as costs associated with
the development quad laser drivers & quad amplifiers (or deka drivers
& amps)
- I'd like to hear a comment / perspective from the fiber
manufacturers on the utilization rate of the ribbon fiber strands.
For a 4x10G MMF approach presumably 8 strands in the 12 ribbon would
be used 4 for TX and 4 for RX. For a 10x10G MMF approach it would be
2 @12 with 10 @ Tx and 10 @ RX. What does this do to the cost and
usage rate metrics of MMF cabling?
- Would an SMF PMD objective at 40GbE have broad market potential
(BMP)? Here I am very skeptical
- Assuming that BMP was shown for an SMF PMD objective, I would
advocate a 2km serial 40Gbit/s scheme rather than a 4 lambda approach
as the transmission problems are not as severe
- This would represent the path that reuses the most technology and
allows for a compact & low power dissipation end solution
- As I have stated one of the primary impediments is the availability
of a low power interface IC -- this is the primary obstacle for OC768
(40G SONET/SDH) modules
- A 4 lambda x 10G at single mode would not simply be able to plug in
the work done on 802.3ae as the technical challenge of MUX/DMUX
optical loss and packaging would require a new round of investment
In closing I'd like to see some supporting data for the Broad Market
Potential of 40GbE (including distance / media usage
comments/assumptions) that reflects the timeframe of standard
development -- eg. demand/need in 2009-2012.
thanks,
--matt traverso
mtraverso@opnext.com
NOTE: This e-mail is being sent from my personal e-mail account rather
than my corporate e-mail address at Opnext due to default signature
files embedded in my Opnext e-mail account.