hi tom,
appended below is a list of11 alternate models of CX4 10Gbe NIC boards.
(other than chelsio and myricom).
this is a very old list, from august 2008,
and there other several newer cards from many
other companies, but i don't have an up to date list.
(sorry). i also don't know which cards can supply
power to fiber optic cables, so you will need to do a
bit of research.
best wishes,
dan
intel EXPX9502CX4
interface masters 2711-CX4
interface masters 2710-CX4
le wiz istream5220-CX4
le wiz Talon3220-CX4
neterion Xframe E
neterion X3110-CX4
neterion X3120-CX4
netxen NXB-10GCX4
silicom PE10G2T-CX4
silicom PE10G2I-CX4
best wishes,
dan
On 1/29/2011 10:13 AM, Tom Downes wrote:
I'm talking with the engineers at Chelsio about just such a beast and
expect a call back on Monday. I imagine I'll go with CX4 on both ends
and Zarlink for now, but it seems like something the ROACH community
needs to think about - sound like GMRT is doing something like this.
Every time I've spoken with an engineer at Chelsio or Myricom about
CX4-SFP+ (probably with fiber between), the initial reaction is
something like Bugs Bunny saying "Hansel". It's as if it were
something they would never have considered doing in a million years. I
think the conventional wisdom is not just that these transceivers can
impede speed, but can also impede the ability of the link to remain up
at all.
Tom
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:57 AM, John Ford <jf...@nrao.edu
<mailto:jf...@nrao.edu>> wrote:
Can one use the zarlink (or something like it) on the ROACH end, and
connect the fiber to an SFP+ module in the computer or switch? It
seems
like someone ought to make such a beast, considering there are a
lot of
cx-4 ports in the field that need to be connected to new CX-4 - only
switches and NICs.
This is, I'm afraid, the downside to throwing in your lot with
commercial
products. You're at the mercy of the markets.
John
> I am avoiding Myricom for the reasons Rick mentioned. It took a
long time
> for me to get the sales/technical person to even understand that
I wanted
> to
> go from CX4 to fiber.
>
> But Chelsio, as several have mentioned on this list, provides
the power
> necessary for transceivers to work. They also have offloading
cards (which
> I
> believe is what you're describing) - or at least they did until the
> discontinued their CX4 line. Not sure what the new Chelsio
product line
> will
> look like and I am somewhat dubious that they will stay on the
4-6 week
> timeframe. Every vendor that I and a collaborator have called
are out of
> Chelsio CX4 stock.
>
> Intel makes 10gbe cards, but the list archives are ambiguous as
to whether
> they power the transceivers in the Zarlink cables.
>
> My primary concern is that if companies already see fit to
discontinue CX4
> products, then (a) it is hard to connect to the ROACH now and
(b) will be
> nearly impossible when something breaks in 6 years.
>
> How far along are the GMRT folks?
>
> Tom
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:06 PM, rick raffanti
<rik...@earthlink.net <mailto:rik...@earthlink.net>>
> wrote:
>
>> The Myricom people told me they don't make NICs with active
ports- ie,
>> aux
>> power for the fiber translator. That's why we bought the Chelsio.
>> Anton is
>> getting 6Gb/s throughput with the Chelsio- we haven't tried to
push it
>> further. I wasn't aware of the UDP packet handling stuff, though.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2011 5:53 PM, Dan Werthimer wrote:
>>
>>
>> hi tom,
>>
>> one more note:
>>
>> if you use fiber optic CX4 cables,
>> please see the warning at
>>
>> http://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/Recommended_10_GbE_Hardware
>>
>> not all NIC boards have built in power to support
>> fiber optic cables. check with myricom.
>> the ibob/bee2/roach boards have built in power.
>>
>> dan
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2011 2:41 PM, Tom Downes wrote:
>>
>> So Chelsio has end-of-lifed their CX4 line. They say "4-6
weeks" until
>> new
>> cards come out as part of a new product line, but their sales
contact
>> said
>> this reflected a larger recognition that CX4 is not how the
industry is
>> going.
>>
>> My thought is that I should be buying an SFP+ card and
figuring out a
>> way
>> to convert to CX4, e.g. SFP+->optical, optical->CX4. Our cable
lengths
>> that
>> we will (eventually) need are all greater than 15m, so outside
of the
>> CX4
>> spec, much less what the ROACH boards are apparently cable of
driving.
>>
>> Is such a transceiver scheme plausible? I am having trouble
finding the
>> appropriate parts.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Matt Dexter
<mdex...@berkeley.edu <mailto:mdex...@berkeley.edu>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes - when pricing switches, or any sort of (sub-)system, a full
>>> BOM must be used to make a meaningful comparison.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, John Ford wrote:
>>>
>>> And don't forget that the switches that are XFP and SFP+
sometimes
>>>> (usually?) don't include the optics for each port in the
switch price.
>>>>
>>>> With CX4, all you need is a cable, if you're within a few meters.
>>>>
>>>> Yes - that list is years old.
>>>>> Those Fujitsu and HP switches have been tested with the CASPER
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> and found to work as advertised.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are lots of new products available. More announced
>>>>> all the time. We are in contact with a number of vendors in
>>>>> hopes of getting demo units to try in house with the CASPER
>>>>> hardware before listing them as recommended for use.
>>>>> Our tests will include running at full line rates all ports
>>>>> continuously
>>>>> as that's what our intended applications require.
>>>>>
>>>>> Less demanding applications will have many more, and
>>>>> cheaper, options for suitable switch vendor and model.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no prediction for when I will be able to add more switch
>>>>> models will to that list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Matt Dexter
<mdex...@berkeley.edu <mailto:mdex...@berkeley.edu>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> were you aware of these ?
>>>>>>> http://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/Recommended_10_GbE_Hardware
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly the list is out of date: some of the switches are no
longer in
>>>>>> production. The XG700, for example, is great and cheap but you
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> buy one without great difficulty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure that manufacturers really care about CX4
anymore now
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> SFP+ parts are available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/Equipment_Cables
>>>>>>> Matt Dexter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Tom Downes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Casper-folks:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hoping to short-circuit a fair amount of research here in
the hope
>>>>>>>> that someone has had to do this already. I'll soon be
looking to
>>>>>>>> connect 10-20 ROACH boards by 10 gbe to a data acquisition
>>>>>>>> computer(s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems like the smartest way of doing that is getting a
16-port
>>>>>>>> switch or potentially two 8-port switches. But the 10 Gbe
port on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> ROACH seems to be CX4 which I take to be a less popular
connector
>>>>>>>> variety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What kind of switches have ROACH users out there used to
connect
>>>>>>>> up a
>>>>>>>> bunch of boards? Are there switches out there to convert
CX4 to
>>>>>>>> something with a reach longer than the 15m Wikipedia
quotes as the
>>>>>>>> limit of CX4. 15m is very borderline for our needs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The prices seem to vary widely. We do not need network
admin tools
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> anything fancy. In fact our data rates could probably go
over 10Mb
>>>>>>>> cabling, but the 10Gbe interface of the ROACH is more
convenient
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the firmware perspective. This is more of a multiplexer
than a
>>>>>>>> switch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
