Slashdot Mirror

And how is this any different from the PICMG 1.x standards?

http://www.picmg.org/v2internal/resourcepage2.cfm?id=8

Lots of people have been building systems around this technology for years using passive backplanes.

Unfortunately, "standards" can be as much of a problem as a benefit. Many companies will view an industry standard as a method to obstruct competitors. If Company A can get their document format adopted as the "standard," they've got a built-in head start on everyone else who has to rework any existing products they have in the pipe to be "standards compliant."

My former employer designated me a their rep to the ANSI T1 standards body back in the mid-90's when SONET was the hot thing. I entered with youthful ignorance and enthusiasm, but exited as a complete cynic. I've never seen so much posturing and pandering with respect to corporate positions. Some folks had strong corporate agendas (i.e. MCI,) while others (HP) tended to have a more open viewpoint.

Regardless of the politics involved, there always seem to be corporate positions that hide just beneath the surface of industry standards. Instead of being the wild west frontier, introducing a standard says you must "be at least this tall to play in this market." Oh, and you have to pay the extortion fee to the standards body in order to get the specs. The PICMG is a good example. A so-called "open" body, you're welcome to participate. Oh, but you need to pay the annual fee to join the group first. Oh, and expect to shell out a couple hundred bucks for copies of the documents.

The PICMG is only one example. They're open enough to let non-members purchase the standards. The ITU has similar non-member document purchase options, but participation in the committees is substantially more restricted. The SD-Card cartel is much more closed. So don't think that standards creation benefits you first. That's just a convenient symptom. Companies establish standards as defensive barriers. If Company X thinks it's too expensive to enter Market A because the standards compliance is so draconian, then the standards have done their job for the membership. The fact that consumers get $10 ethernet cards out of the deal is completely coincidental.

Unfortunately, "standards" can be as much of a problem as a benefit. Many companies will view an industry standard as a method to obstruct competitors. If Company A can get their document format adopted as the "standard," they've got a built-in head start on everyone else who has to rework any existing products they have in the pipe to be "standards compliant."

My former employer designated me a their rep to the ANSI T1 standards body back in the mid-90's when SONET was the hot thing. I entered with youthful ignorance and enthusiasm, but exited as a complete cynic. I've never seen so much posturing and pandering with respect to corporate positions. Some folks had strong corporate agendas (i.e. MCI,) while others (HP) tended to have a more open viewpoint.

Regardless of the politics involved, there always seem to be corporate positions that hide just beneath the surface of industry standards. Instead of being the wild west frontier, introducing a standard says you must "be at least this tall to play in this market." Oh, and you have to pay the extortion fee to the standards body in order to get the specs. The PICMG is a good example. A so-called "open" body, you're welcome to participate. Oh, but you need to pay the annual fee to join the group first. Oh, and expect to shell out a couple hundred bucks for copies of the documents.

The PICMG is only one example. They're open enough to let non-members purchase the standards. The ITU has similar non-member document purchase options, but participation in the committees is substantially more restricted. The SD-Card cartel is much more closed. So don't think that standards creation benefits you first. That's just a convenient symptom. Companies establish standards as defensive barriers. If Company X thinks it's too expensive to enter Market A because the standards compliance is so draconian, then the standards have done their job for the membership. The fact that consumers get $10 ethernet cards out of the deal is completely coincidental.

The PCIMG have had the 2.16 OPEN standard around for a while and it's supported by a goodly number of manufacturers offering a wide range of cards, not just blades. 2.16 defines a cPCI chassis where cards (blades) use twin ethernet, initally over the backplance, to communicate with each other and the outside world via a pair of switches, one at each end of the rack. mmmm....., redundancy.

I'm not sure how much overlap there is in the target markets, but the concept seems more or less identical to this 'new breakthrough'. The artcicle's/IBM's statement that to date, no standard exists to pull together blades and switches, making the Cisco-IBM solution "a de factor (sic) standard," according to an IBM spokesperson seem like blinkered wishful thinking from their marketing departement.

First, let me be honest. I just skimmed the LinuxDevices article and didn't read the Microsoft article.

One thing I've noticed among PHBs is an ever-broadening definition of "embedded systems". I've seen more than one project go down the road of using a cPCI system running Windows NT 3.51 (yes these are current systems running this old version) on a harddrive. These systems are calling themselves "embedded".

This has been especially in systems that had serious size, weight, and power needs. Had I designed the system, I guess I would've used something like QNX or Linux on a much smaller processor, compact flash card, etc.

I guess my point is that these days it seems like general-purpose computers are being called "embedded" when I see embedded as much, much smaller (e.g. no moving parts, a microcontroller, etc...).

I dunno, I'm rambling...

Here are the first 10 hits of a GOOGLE search for "PCI" (somewhat edited by me). As you see, the Term is not that individual...

1. PCI Geomatics Home Page - Committed to GEO-Intelligence Solutions
   PCI Geomatics is a worldwide-class leader in the geomatics software industry. ...
   Description: Software provider for remote sensing, photogrammetry, cartography, spatial analysis, and GIS.
2. PCI News
   Welcome to the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, with membership throughout the world. ...
   Description: Organizational site includes trade, technical and public affairs information for precast/prestressed...
3. PCI-SIG - Home
   PCI-SIG Logo, ... Free Members Only Technical Support View the PCI-SIG Integrators
   Description: Unincorporated association of members of the microcomputer industry set up to for the purpose of monitori...
4. pci.chadwyck.com/
   [Periodicals Contents Index]
5. pcift.chadwyck.co.uk/
   [Periodicals Contents Index]
6. PLANEX COMMUNICATIONS INC.
   The summary for this Japanese page contains characters that cannot be correctly displayed in this language/character set.
7. pci.chadwyck.co.uk/ [Periodicals Contents Index]
8. PCI Vendor and Device Lists
   PCI Vendor and Device Lists. This page is primarily intended as an engineering resource for people who need to deal with computers built around the PCI bus.
9. PCI Technologies Inc. designs and manufactures custom and ...
   Description: Designs and manufactures filters and traps, as well as test signal generators and splitting/combining...
10. PICMG - PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group
    The PICMG (PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group) is a consortium of over 250 companies who collaboratively develop specifications that adapt PCI ...
    

Bye, Pat!

And it looks to me like it's pretty easy to get the specs. The current specs (not AdvancedTCA) cost $95.00. Hell, I can afford that. If you don't think $95.00 is reasonable/negligible, you don't need the spec because you're not manufacturing computer hardware.

In conclusion, it looks very much like an open standard.

And it looks to me like it's pretty easy to get the specs. The current specs (not AdvancedTCA) cost $95.00. Hell, I can afford that. If you don't think $95.00 is reasonable/negligible, you don't need the spec because you're not manufacturing computer hardware.

In conclusion, it looks very much like an open standard.

Where Linux will really shine is the new PICMG-2.16 standard. It's an enhancement/alternative to CompactPCI where a chassis uses Ethernet signalling on the backplane instead of CompactPCI signals. That means a single chassis can have an intel, Sun, and/or motorola blade in the same chassis and they communicate via TCP/IP instead of hardware-specific signalling. It also means that a Linux-based blade can work in *any* manufacturers chassis. This removes a big barrier of entry for the Linux in the telecom market.

Other cool things about PICMG 2-16 Blades:

• Blades (like ethernet hosts) are more easily hot-swappable
• Depending on the chassis switch, bus speeds could approach 24GB/s in the near future
• Device drivers need only speak TCP/IP (one driver works on multiple blade operating systems)

Take a look here for more info on PICMG if you're not familiar with it. It's basically a dumb ("passive") board containing a bunch of slots, with nearly all of the traditional "motherboard" logic moved to the daughtercard (which is what is being shown in this article). Neat concept, but more expensive than standard motherboards with no real benefits for home use.