Talk:10 Gigabit Ethernet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article says

Unlike earlier Ethernet systems, 10-gigabit Ethernet (for any nontrivial distance) is so far based entirely on the use of optical fibre connections

although there is 10GBASE-CX4 -- Copper interface using InfiniBand CX4 cables and InfiniBand 4x connectors for short-reach (15 m maximum) applications mentioned... copper implies copper, not fiber.... so is there a mistake? --Abdull 12:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The first 10GbE IEEE spec (802.3ae) did not support any copper (other than MAC to PHY interconnects). CX4 was added later in IEEE P802.3ak. You can also run XAUI for about 20 inches on copper or printed circuit board. I am not not sure what the "nontrivial distance" comment is referring too because CX4 can be 25m, so I assume that comment was referring to XAUI and is no longer true in light of CX4 and will definitely need deleting when 10GBASE-T is ratified. Patrick0101 20:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-trivial means greater than the reach of CX4. I think this paragraph should be changed to "Unlike earlier Ethernet systems, 10 gigabit Ethernet was initially based mostly on the use of optical fiber connections. More recent developments introduced 10GBASE-CX4 for links up to 25m over Infiniband cable; and work is progressing on 10GBASE-T to allow links up to 100m over UTP." Thoughts? Andybryant 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched everywhere for the clock rate of the 10GbE. I've just found in a datasheet of one transceiver vendor: 10.3125 Gbps, but I don't know how and where to put it in the text... Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 12:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This is the bit rate for the LAN PHY varient of 10GbE. The 10GBase-xW varients run at the SDH/SONET rate of 9.953 Gbps. I've made this change to the page. The only thing I'm not sure about is if LX4 is LAN PHY or not. Andybryant 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The baud rate for each lane of CX4 is 3.125 GHz implying that with four lanes it's possible to transmit 12.5 Gbps though I know a large portion is lost by the 8b10b Clause 48 PCS conversion meaning ideal spead would be 10Gbps (8/10 * 12.5).


Contents

[edit] 10GBASE-T Approved!

PDF Warning - Check it out: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/minutes/jul2006/Minutes%20-%20Monday%20July%2017%202006.pdf

10GBASE-T has been approved! They can start officially making the devices! Yay! --UNHchabo 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: According to that article, the standard will be published on 15 Aug 2006. --UNHchabo 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move from '10-gigabit Ethernet'

Wouldn't it be "10 gigabit Ethernet" instead of "10 Gigabit Ethernet" as per WP:MOSNUM? Might as well do another move while at it. -- intgr 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, noone has opposed so far, I'm going to do the move. -- intgr 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unjustified revert

Some-one (no user account) has just reverted my correction of 'faster' to 'as fast' with no explanation of why. Is this vandalism? T23c 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, it may just be ignorance. Try reverting back, with a pointer to the talk page where you explain why the use of 'as fast' is better. WIth luck, if the anonymous editor disagrees with you, you can then debate the issue.WLD 13:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It is my mistake actually. I put 'as fast than' by mistake, and he must have not seen the history. I have changed it to 'as fast as' now. T23c 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CX4 section inaccurate

Not every 10gbaseCX4 card has a modular PHY as claimed. The Myricom card (http://www.miricom.com) does not.

[edit] 10gbase-T section

It should also be noted that one reason few 10gbase-T implementations exist is because they dissipate too much power [1]. Also 10gbase-T does not support Cat 5e and may not support Cat 6 [2]. New wiring standards Category 6e and Category 7 have been created for 10gbase-T. The claim of products in 2008 at less than $500 per port is not substantiated. --Quanstro 06:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

Is the "implementation" section really necessary? 10gig devices have been on the market for a few years now, plenty of manufacturers make them. Seems like a ripe place for spam. --UNHchabo 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'tis gone now -- KelleyCook 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CX4 form factor availability

CX4 modules are now available in XPAK (from molex) and XFP (from emcore) form factors. Ottawa matt 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WARP -- delete?

The WARP section looks like it was originally created as an advertisement for the company , by the same author who created the article about the company. It isn't quite so bad after rewriting, but does it need to be here at all? The funny shield is interesting, but the claim that this "enables" 100 meter links is clearly invalid, since others have demonstrated 100 meter 10GbaseT links without it.

I'd suggest the best answer might be simply to delete it. If there's anything notable to be said, it can then be brought up. Trying to take what started as an ad and making it "better" isn't necessarily a good way to arrive at a quality result. Paul Koning 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Center defect"???

What is a "center defect"? I've never heard that term.

Due to recent edits, the article now claims that FDDI fiber (62.5 μm fiber) has lower bandwidth due to a "center defect". I have no idea what to make of that. FDDI fiber has a lower modal bandwidth spec (i.e., higher dispersion) so it can't do 10 Gb/s at any significant distance. That's all there is to it as far as I know.

A reference and explanation would be good. Paul Koning (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out slide 14 of http://bicsi.org/Events/Conferences/Spring/2005/GeorgePRES.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.238.25 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but that slide doesn't talk about FDDI fiber. Apart from that one picture without any explanation, is there anything else? I still don't think it's a good idea to refer to a term that is essentially never used in the industry and isn't defined anywhere. Paul Koning (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the significant things about OM3 from the 10GBE viewpoint is the lack of need for a mode conditioning patch cord (MCPC) for -LX4. The 'center defect' makes explaining the operation of the MCPC really straight forward. I don't object if you want to remove 'center defect' however I think the mention of the MCPC for -LX4 needs to be kept and why it is not needed for OM3. Also OM3 is really significant for 10GBE as it allows the use of low cost -SR and will maybe kill off adoption -LRM. A decent description of OM3 and how it differs from FDDI would be helpful in this article. I am new to wikipedia and I saw the 10GBE entry was way out of date and I thought I would make a stab at bringing it up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.110.196 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] interoperability of 10GBASE-LR and 10GBASE-ER

I recently had the information that 10GBase-LR and 10GBase-ER could interoperate together on a shared frequency band. I was told that this is an "undocumented" feature. Although i am quite sceptical, i must admit that this explication is the only one that can explain an interconnexion situation at the place where i am working, unless the optic transceiver on a router to which we are connected (and to which i don't have physical access) is not what it is claimed to be.

If someone knowledgable can confirm this, this information could make it into the article.

Mat i (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real-world Uses and applications?

It would be nice to have a section of this article discussing the uses and applications of 10 gigabit Ethernet.

As far as I know, no disk storage technology is currently capable of sustaining transfer at such speeds, and the top-end disk bus standards are not anywhere near the speed of 10 gigabit. SATA 3.0 has a burst rate of 3 gigabit, but once again no storage technology can even sustain that except via cached reads and writes.

The only thing that could possibly saturate at 10 gigabit link would be a solid state drive, and those are still extremely uncommon due to the immense cost.

Most people I talk with say that a 1 gigabit backbone is still reasonable for most applications, and from my own tests I have found that file servers often have a hard time saturating even a 1 gigabit link. What with the continued popularity of 100 megabit switches with 1 gig uplinks, that seems to be the case.

So who is using 10 gig-E, and for what purpose? I can see it being installed as merely a "huge central pipe" which is fed from a farm of servers, but it seems unlikely to be used to directly link one individual server to a switch, and it also seems unlikely for any one server to be capable of sustained speeds in excess of even 5 gigabit.

Some edumacation for those of us not operating at the elite cusp of the 10 gig-E technological revolution would be helpful.

DMahalko (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)