[Ftk_hardware] crates

Jinlong Zhang jinlong at mail.cern.ch
Thu Mar 24 03:03:14 CDT 2011

Just add one thing: so far the ATCA crate has maximum 16 slots.
This slot limit may cause more crates/racks and re-segmentation of the 
data stream.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Paola Giannetti wrote:

> I am sorry for the late answer, yesterday I couldn't see e-mails.
> I think we cannot use ATCA for the core crates for a lot of reasons that
> I already explained, even at the review:
> (1) we need early to test the system with the new chip, let's say next
> year and it is not realistic to have a new AMBoard, new LAMB and new CPU
> interface for the next year. It is very important to be able to measure
> currents, capability to work at 100 MHz and with the new chip, before
> the end of 2012. We will never do it if we change crate
> (2) We are ahead designing the LAMB, the AMBoard and the AMchip. The
> suggestions of the reviewers are global, incoherent and do not take into
> account the fact that we have already done a lot of work and the budget
> will likely decrease not increase: (1) change package for the AMchip,
> (2) go to 130 nm IBM instead of 65 nm TSMC, (3) use serial links in the
> board instead of parallel buses, (4) get 30% more money (actually if we
> go to serial links we need 400% more money)......  all this is totally
> not realistic for our plan to be able to measure consumption, cooling
> and performances in 2012. Before doing production, we need probably 2-3
> AMChip prototypes, it requires time.
> (3) using VME we are compatible with the vertical slice, what we do for
> the vertical slice is automatically good for the system. If we go to
> ATCA all the work we do with the vertical slice is unuseful. We do not
> have the manpower.
> (4) we already have 2 new VME crates, 2 new CPUs  in the lab, we cannot
> put them in hold.
> (5) we are measuring the consumption and it seems to be less than
> expected, may be a factor 2. This reduces a lot concerns  about 48 V (2
> pins could be enough and separate GND return could be available).
> I really think ATCA for the core crate for 2015 is not feasible,
> especially if in the same time we have to take data with the vertical
> slice. Too much work in a too short time.
> It is an interesting option for phase II. The LAMB will be redesigned
> for that time, with new chips, new packages and new serial links.
> Regards
>                            Paola
> Mel Shochet wrote:
>>      There are now two suggestions for moving to ATCA.  Interboard data
>> transfer in the Data Formatter crates could be made easier (the
>> alternative being fibers between boards).  The Initial Design Review
>> committee recommends that we consider ATCA for the core crates because
>> of the committee's concern about power (our 48-volt solution) and
>> cooling.  We will have to respond to this suggestion.  (A potential
>> disadvantage is ATCA's 8U vs VME's 9U size).  Could we have an initial
>> discussion of the issue at our meeting in 2 weeks (April 5)?  We could
>> hear what the DF issues are from Fermilab and what the core crate issues
>> are from someone in Italy working on the AM and associated
>> infrastructure.  Then we can decide on the next steps if any.
>>                         Regards,
>>                         Mel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ftk_hardware mailing list
>> Ftk_hardware at hep.uchicago.edu
>> http://hep.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ftk_hardware
> _______________________________________________
> Ftk_hardware mailing list
> Ftk_hardware at hep.uchicago.edu
> http://hep.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ftk_hardware

More information about the Ftk_hardware mailing list