Next-Generation Chip Fabs

PaulBu writes "As reported in EE Times, a new IBM $2.5B fab will be the first one to 'produce chips using all three of the sophisticated technologies on the industry's bleeding edge: low-k dielectrics, copper interconnect and silicon-on-insulator based transistors' on 300mm wafers. And it runs entirely on Linux! Quote from the article: 'The state of automation in Building 323 is such that 20,000 sensors are used to track wafer lots in front-opening unified pods that are transported from one tool to the next on rails using linear induction motors. The setup resembles an intricate monorail system tuned to millimeter-precision specs. A central control system monitors all stations and tracks wafer lots via 802.11 wireless communications.'"

Comments

Watch out for Starbucks

[havaloc]

For they will wreck havoc with your 802.11 control infrastructure.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[unicron]

I'd be more worried about wardrivers. A lapse in security could result in someone on the street loading the master control program and thinking it's to ruin a few thousand high end processor chips. Hell, could you imagine how bad it would be if someone maliciously turned off the error checking on the sensors and it went un-noticed for even a days worth of manufacturing.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[DonkeyJimmy]

Watch out for Starbucks?
This is the wrong thread for that.
We do not belong.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[SanLouBlues]

Or even if they only implemented their own 802.11 network at very high signal power, causing IBM's traffic to be filtered as noise. But then again, IBM isn't that stupid, and they probably either have a huge radius of land around the factory that they control (very likely also for coporate espionage prevention), use very high transmission power themselves, or have some sort of EM shielding in the factory walls.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[unicron]

Yeah, but if you know where the building is, you could always wardrive with a high-gain directional attenna.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Jucius Maximus]

"Or even if they only implemented their own 802.11 network at very high signal power, causing IBM's traffic to be filtered as noise."

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 802.11a. Most people with their 2.4 GHz 802.11b equipment can't connect to the 5 GHz 802.11a networks.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[_Swank]

i'm assuming you've never worked in manufacturing, but the machines used in most plants almost never run completely unattended. much of the time they have an operator who's job is to watch over the machine to make sure it's operating. in addition they (or someone else) is almost always responsible for taking a sample of the product after the machine has done it's duty and running it through various tests to ensure certain conditions on the parts they are creating. this helps to guarantee both that if a machine is not functioning normally, it's caught as soon as possible and second that those parts that were manufactured while the machine was misbehaving don't get sent on for further processing.

any manufacturing company worth their salt (read in business) has these measures in place, IBM being one of these.

(and yes, i work for IBM, but no longer on the manufacturing side)

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[afidel]

Actually the building itself probably acts as the EM shielding as most plants are made of reinforced concrete, 2.4Ghz signals either fail to penetrate the concrete or are reflected by the steel reinforcing bars. I doubt you could get a signal in the parking lot much less outside their secured fence.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[sharkey]

A lapse in security could result in someone on the street loading the master control program and thinking it's to ruin a few thousand high end processor chips.

That's easily fixed. Just load up TRON. He'll even watchdog the MCP too.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 802.11a. Most people with their 2.4 GHz 802.11b equipment can't connect to the 5 GHz 802.11a networks.

How long do you think it will take to get some ppl wardriving for 802.11a?

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Jucius Maximus]

"How long do you think it will take to get some ppl wardriving for 802.11a?"

I suggest you research 802.11j and then reconsider whether or not you want to ask that question.

OK, ok, I'll tell you. 802.11j is a protocol that is backwards compatible with 802.11b but has the speed of 802.11a. Most .11b devices will upgrade to .11j with a firmware upgrade in some months.

(802.11a will still be attractive because the 2.4 GHz spectrum of .11b/j is way too cluttered, and the spec allows for a higher density of access points. This is good for corporate offices with many users.)

Thus, large scale warchalking if .11a networks is highly unlikely.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Cougar1]

I have worked in a semiconductor manufacturing environment and to me the bigger concern would be interference between the 802.11 transmitters and the sensitive electronic equipment used in some stages of manufacturing. I'm not an EM guy, so I really don't know which equipment would be most susceptible to interference, but I would imagine some plasma tools, ion implanters, and especially testing equipment (which measures very small electrical currents in the completed devices) could be effected. I do know that due to interference concerns, cell phones were not allowed in the Fabs where I worked.

Of course 802.11 is much lower power than a cell phone (especially the old analog variety), so perhaps it is not a concern. Also, certainly IBM would be aware of potential interference problems and would have taken steps to avoid them, so it is possible that sensitive equipment is located in a part of the fab that is isolated from the wireless network.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Istealmymusic]

My spectrum of 11 bj is also way too cluttered. Yeah, its good for corporate offices Clinton secretaries but also home use.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[jrwyant]

Mod parent up. References from Tron out of the blue, that's good. :)

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[madprof]

Oh you may jest now...

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[Alien Being]

I don't see why they wouldn't hardwire stationary equipment. It's not like a cat-5 is any harder than big electrical, vacuum, and other types of plumbing.

OTOH, it would be a big improvement over the IR-speaking mobile robots i encounterd when i worked in a particular fab in Japan.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[JebusIsLord]

they should just wrap the whole plant in a faraday cage.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[_Swank]

i can't say i've got a certain answer to your question, but here's a possible scenario (somewhat fudged) that might show wireless could have an advantage.

while the large equipment is stationary, there are certainly moving parts to it. some of these pieces are large and travel a lot (they're not rotating wheels). in hard disk manufacturing, there's a large stationary machine that picks up carts of unplated aluminum disks and sticks them into a tank of chemical solution for a time, pulls it out and sticks it into another chemical solution, and so on until the nickel plating process is complete.

while this cart doesn't really do much other than get stuck in chemicals, if one needed a 'smarter' cart for a certain purpose and so needed to be connected to a lan (for monitoring of plating process data etc.) wireless might be significantly easier than making sure the wires could travel where the cart is. especially since the carts are used to carry the disks for a number of steps in the process, i.e. through a number of machines. wireless would allow the cart itself to be 'smart' and not have to rely as much on connecting to whichever big machine it is currently in to hook up to and communicate with.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[BattyMan]

I'd have to agree with that.

I work inside one of Motorola's fab-style buildings (the fab ain't in here, it's next door, but all the buildings on the site share the same architecture) and the whole thing is reinforced concrete with steel siding. There are probably reasons for this, like keeping a huge clean-room basically airtight, ESD protection for the product, security (you would NOT break through the walls with a Cessna), I dunno.

The EEE's call it a "Faraday Cage(tm)". Inside this shielded building there are a couple of hundred Sun & Wintel workstations producing their very own EM spectrum. I can get neither AM nor FM nor CDMA inside. Actually the CDMA problem is more one of getting _out_.

So no, you probably won't get much from their Wi-Fi. Not from outside the fence, and if you even try to hang out in the parking lot the security people will be out soon to interview you.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[BattyMan]

Uh, how would such a gizzie be _powered_?
Batteries? Pretty unlikely, it'd be online 24/7, leaving notime to charge them.
Contacts on the host stations? Induction?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Watch out for Starbucks

[BattyMan]

We do not belong.

"Go sit on that bench over there marked 'Group W'. Now, kid!"

confused about ibm's plans

[epicstruggle]

I thought ibm was implementing a new plan of getting out of anything hardware related and concentrating in proving "services" (ie the recent purchase of a major company, cant remember its name). Maybe im just confused.

epicstruggle

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[ScoLgo]

I believe you're thinking of their specific move away from hard drives - not hardware in general.

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[Fat Casper]

I thought ibm was implementing a new plan of getting out of anything hardware related and concentrating in proving "services" (ie the recent purchase of a major company, cant remember its name). Maybe im just confused.

No, they're doing MS one better. Software being a service is just so 90s. In the coming century, hardware itself will be a service.

IBM knew that they couldn't come up with this hardware plan alone, so they bought a phone company. Remember when you had to rent your phone and it was illegal to connect a phone that they didn't own to their lines? I mean, forget about activiating your OS. Can you see an automatic deduction from checking every time you boot up?

Wait, then why is IBM pushing Linux? If they were really going with a pay-per-boot plan, they'd be pushing MS. Either they didn't think this plan through all the way, or I'm reading it incorrectly.

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[purrpurrpussy]

I wouldn't be!!! They can churn out huge amounts of cheap chips - about 1Ghz, all with wireless links, all running Linux.... hell put the OS in the firmware.... then they will fill offices with them! There's no use selling 1 computer to a company, you need to sell a complete system for it to be garaunteed sale esp. if you can cut great chunks out of the cost. Customization is easy BTW..... Windows costs extra... perhaps they won't though!

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. IBM is in no way moving away from the hardware market. Global services is becoming increasingly huge, but their hardware division is not becoming SMALLER (other than specific things, such as the sale of our money-losing HD business). This new fab, from what I understand, is meant for foundry services... making chips for other companies. (I work for IBM Global Services)

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[RAzaRazor]

Duh! They're using Linux because they don't want to have to pay everytime they reboot the plant!!

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM isn't getting out of the hardware business, and it seems very unlikely that IBM will ever get out of the hardware business. Or the software business, either.

What IBM has done is systematically get out of all of the low-margin hardware and software business, while expanding its services organization, which is also a fairly high-margin business.

It's a compelling strategy because it works to facilitate information flow in both directions between IBM and its customers.

Customers like it because IBM Global Services (IGS) has good people and methodologies and because they're fairly vendor-neutral (although they'll recommend IBM products unless there's a good reason to prefer others). Customers like IGS even more when the project is implementing IBM products, though, because the IGS practitioners have pretty good access to the product labs and the R&D labs, which can really help when things go wrong. This gives IBM hardware and software customers an incentive to hire IGS and gives IGS services customers an incentive to buy IBM.

Even better, from IBM's point of view, is that the 100,000 services guys working in all of these clients worldwide provide a great deal of from-the-trenches insight into how IBM's hardware and software products should be improved to help them beat out the competition. When a situation arises where a competitor's product is superior to IBM's product in some significant way, there is often some client who has hired IGS to do determine what should be used. IGS will recommend the better product, but will also let the IBM product teams know exactly why they lost out. And IGS will turn a tidy profit analyzing and documenting the IBM product's deficiencies!

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[Anonymous Coward]

Some other comments about IBM's business: IBM's R&D labs.

IBM also exploits synergies between their hardware, software, services and research divisions. Cutting-edge stuff from the research organizations is sometimes employed in making IBM products, which is what you would expect (other times it may be licensed to other companies rather than implemented by IBM. Other times it turns out to be wasted effort and gets shelved, which is the nature of R&D). IBM product development teams in turn learn about the nuts and bolts issues that arise when you turn a piece of research into a product, which provides insights that are often interesting to the researchers.

In many cases, new research needs a real-world testbed before it's ready to be made into a product, and IBM Global Services often gets involved here. A client who is interested in being a test site will be identified and IGS will work with the researchers to build and deploy the working system. IGS does the tedious work that researchers generally don't like and the labs provide the cool new technology. And the client pays for a good chunk of it all (generally the lab personnel don't charge for whatever they were "going to do anyway", but the rest of it is all billable). Usually, the client is very happy with this arrangement because although they're actually footing part of IBM's research bill, they're also getting a jump on their competition.

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[megaduck]

While it's true that IBM has been pushing "services" really hard, they've still got their fingers in a lot of pies. IBM has annual revenues of over 85 billion dollars, and makes around two billion dollars in profit every three months. When you're running a ship that big, you don't put all of your eggs in one basket. You stay in as many profitable markets as you can without losing focus.

Because they've been out of the limelight for a while, people seem to forget just how huge and diversified IBM really is. IBM successfully competes with Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, Sun, HP, and EDS all at once. Occasionally they'll ditch a division (like storage) because there's no longer any profit in it. However if there's money to be made in a tech market, you can bet that IBM will be there.

Re:confused about ibm's plans

[geekee]

IBM has a good track record for developing fabrication technologies, e.g. IBM was on the forefront of such technological advances as SiGe, SOI, Copper Interconnect, low dielectric insulators, etc. Unfortunately, their track record for producing useful chips based on these technolgies is less noteworthy. PowerPC doesn't sell nearly as well as a Pentium, or even an Athlon. They've given up on electronics for optical networking, at least for now. The list goes on. Mostly, they make money providing fab services for fabless chip design companies. So in a sense, it is a service they're providing

*snicker*

[Ratface]

"Hartswick said Linux was evaluated against a Windows-based system and performed flawlessly for three months, whereas the Windows-based system failed after six or seven days."

It's points like this which the Linux evangelists out there should be adding to their scrapbooks.

Interesting to note that their network is based on 1Ghz processors though - perhaps a way of reducing an ageing inventory??

Re:*snicker*

[armyofone]

Interesting to note that their network is based on 1Ghz processors though - perhaps a way of reducing an ageing inventory??

That may very well be part of the motivation. Another thought occurs to me; one of the selling-points of Linux over Windows is that it performs better on older hardware. Why pay more for un-needed processing power, after all?

Re:*snicker*

[Grishnakh]

Probably because that's the low end in processors these days. I recently bought a new motherboard and CPU, and I didn't really want the fastest thing around, so I got a 1 GHz AMD Duron for a measly $40. The motherboard cost twice that! (Of course this means I should be able to easily upgrade later.) I could have gotten something slower like a 950 MHz Duron or even 850 MHz, but I probably would have only saved $3. Plus, my understanding is the 1GHz Durons use the new Morgan core rather than the old Spitfire one, and so use a smaller process which uses less power.

Re:*snicker*

[mmol_6453]

I'm not so sure about the "better on older hardware" thing anymore.

Sure, Linux never drops support for hardware, but the distributions, at least, grow to depend on more resources.

I'm trying to install Debian on a 486 right next to me, and dselect's been loading the package database for an hour. (I intend to use the machine as a NAT gateway.)

Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[jukal]

" Hartswick said Linux was evaluated against a Windows-based system and performed flawlessly for three months, whereas the Windows-based system failed after six or seven days. "

"An internally developed master software system called SiView controls all manufacturing operations. An IBM spokesperson said the manufacturing execution system is being licensed to others for fab control.

As for the intended output of Building 323, Bijan Davari, vice president for technology and emerging products, said the company has "spent $500 million on process development alone in order to maintain our technology leadership, and we are experiencing a significant recovery via intellectual-property licensing and alliances. Our value proposition is that we are one to two years ahead of the best of the best."

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[cperciva]

" Hartswick said Linux was evaluated against a Windows-based system and performed flawlessly for three months, whereas the Windows-based system failed after six or seven days. "

If you have to resort to saying "well, it's better than Windows", you've got problems.

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[SirSlud]

Yeah, who on earth would make a decision based on whats better? Whats the engineering world coming to?

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[armyofone]

What part of performed flawlessly for three months did you not understand?

Claiming to be better than the competition - and being able to show real-world examples of it is a Good Thing. Seems to me that if you can't say, "It's better than Windows", that's when you really have problems.

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[afidel]

My understanding is that almost all previous controll software ran on VMS, so linux replacing the older systems is significant, even if the other replacement consideration was windows.

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[ScoLgo]

Whats the engineering world coming to?

Funny you should ask.

Ahhhh... slashdot - some days you make me smile :-)

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[p3d0]

Our value proposition is that we are one to two years ahead of the best of the best.

Really? Then who is the best of the best?

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[dotslashdotdot]

Linux at IBM seems to have deeply penetrated the xSeries x86 machines with Intel processors and the zSeries mainframe machines (through virtualization of resources).

AIX 5L has an "affinity" for GNU/Linux applications, but there's not much available for native Linux device drivers for the things that make rs6000 boxes kick butt like SSA disk if you want to run Linux on a pSeries machine.
Linux apps, however, can be ported to AIX 5L moderately easily, and take advantage of some well thought out things that have been migrated from mainframe technology to AIX.

This diffustion of Linux throughout IBM may give many individual people and small companies a way to leverage an inexpensive development platform into a very scalable intellectual property foundry. IBM seems to want this to happen.

Unix was supposed to do this.
VMS was supposed to do this.
CP/M was supposed to do this.
MSDOS was supposed to do this.
MacOS was supposed to do this.
OS/2 was supposed to do this.
Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP/WTF was supposed to do this.
Monterey was supposed to do this.
Linux is supposed to do this.
Linux apps on AIX are supposed to do this.
Linux apps on zSeries are supposed to do this.

Time marches on.

Want AIX on Itanium? It's kind of available if you really need to think about it.

Microsoft doesn't know beans about "embrace and extend".

Re:Their reasoning for choosing Linux

[RajivSLK]

If you have to resort to saying "well, it's better than Windows", you've got problems.

Dudes, calm down. I think he is being sarcastic (i.e. everything is better than Windows[tm] ). Atleast thats how I took it.

So lets all keep our finger off the trigger (read keyboard) for sec while we digests.

That goes for double mods.

Uhh

[unicron]

I would like to hope that this will drive down chip costs to the consumer, but the ironic/funny thing is is that I fear it will jack them through the roof for 6 months so they can pay for the damn lab.

Re:Uhh

[Zathrus]

Uh... do you have any idea how much fabs cost? Six years ago a state-of-the-art fab, which was designed to manufacture nothing smaller than 0.15 micron transistors (and 0.25 was top notch at the time) cost nearly $1.5B.

Once in full production the fab paid for itself in under 9 months. Amazing what happens when fabbing lots (a lot is 12 or 24 wafers, at least where I worked) that have a street value of $250,000.

Chip costs won't rise. They'll continue to fall, just as they always have. Building a fab is indeed a large investment, but if you have the money to invest then it's one that'll pay for itself in a very short amount of time.

Frankly, $2.5B for a 65 nm (aka 0.065 micron) fab is a good value. Sure, if they're starting off with 150 nm or 130 nm equipment they'll have to replace nearly everything to go down to 90 or 65 nm, but that's probably less than a billion per cycle. Equipment is no big deal -- the building itself is a huge deal. Getting all the tolerances tight enough for 65 nm work costs a LOT of money.

Re:Uhh

[petis]

Yep, the bad thing with Moore's law: Fabs cost double every 18 month. :-)

Re:Uhh

[Cougar1]

Chip costs won't rise. They'll continue to fall, just as they always have. Building a fab is indeed a large investment, but if you have the money to invest then it's one that'll pay for itself in a very short amount of time.

Uh, this assumes you have good products in high demand and can keep the fab running continuously at or near full capacity. A fab running below half capacity can bleed red ink pretty fast! Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of overcapacity in the semiconductor industry at the moment (mostly due to rapid expansion by foundries in Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia). This is one reason why semiconductor stocks have been in the toilet for the last year or so. IBM's Fab will only make this worse. Although IBM's advanced processing technology definitely gives them an advantage, so it may be their competitors rather than IBM that feels the pinch.

Equipment is no big deal -- the building itself is a huge deal. Getting all the tolerances tight enough for 65 nm work costs a LOT of money.

Think again, equipment prices are HUGE, especially when you're talking state of the art 300mm tools! They account for the greater portion of that $2.5B price tag. Lithography tools alone run $15-25M each and a big production fab like this probably has 20-30, so you're already at $0.5B with just one step of the process. Now add in Ion implanters, Plasma etch systems, CVD equipment, diffusion furnaces, Sputtering systems, chemical mechanical polish tools, electroplating equipment, and wet clean hoods, not to mention all the analytical equipment (SEMs, Elipsometers, particle counters, Quantox systems, CV plotters etc...) needed to ensure everything is functioning properly.

Re:Uhh

[kpk7161]

side note: I work at the 200mm fab across the street.

Actually, the equipment is a big deal, the building was the small thing. The building has been here for over 15 years and its been empty for at least 5.

As for "Getting all the tolerances tight enough for 65nm work costs a LOT of money." The fab is actually only a class 100 cleanroom. Each tool is a micro-environment with its own air handlers creating a class .1 "cleanroom". That is why the tools are so expensive. As for the fab paying for itself, it's highly unlikely that 323 will be able to generate enough revenue this year to offset depreciation. $2.5B is what IBM chipped in(no pun intended). Toshiba, Sony, and Siemens are our 'partners' in this venture.

Talk about a Beowulf cluster...

[ScoLgo]

"This is the first fab whose IT infrastructure is all Linux-based, controlled by some 1,700 1-GHz microprocessors able to access some 600 terabytes of data."

I need one of these setups in my garage ;-)

Re:Talk about a Beowulf cluster...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an added bonus, a computerized garage of gigahertz processors doubles as a crematorium.

Only mm?

[gerf]

The setup resembles an intricate monorail system tuned to millimeter-precision specs

Um, just millimeter? You'd think where chips have components measured in nanometers, that you'd need just a bit more than millimeter precision. Oops, that transistor's off a bit again! i wonder why? :P

Re:Only mm?

[DarkMan]

The tracks are for transport - not for positioning.

It's not clear which method they're using, but either the whole wafer is imobile during the lithography step, or that there are precise adjustments made after they're moved by the liner motors.

Re:Only mm?

[apirkle]

Um, just millimeter? You'd think where chips have components measured in nanometers, that you'd need just a bit more than millimeter precision. Oops, that transistor's off a bit again! i wonder why? :P

They're referring to the system that shuttles containers of wafers around the fab, moving them from machine to machine. Robots run around on rails, dropping down to pick up a sealed container of wafers and whisk it away to the next stage in the manufacturing process.

Once a wafer is loaded into a stepper for printing, rest assured that it is aligned very precisely.

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

system that shuttles containers of wafers around the fab, moving them from machine to machine. Robots run around on rails, dropping down to pick up a sealed container of wafers and whisk it away to the next stage in the manufacturing process.

and

intricate monorail system

Fucking drool.

I want one of those.

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the other replies have already said what I was going to say - the mm refers to transport, not to the chips - but I'd still like to point something out...

If your sig is supposed to be referring to a Simpsons episode, it should say "Don't do what Donny Don't does", not "Johnny Don't".

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? hmm, i guess i'll have to watch closer the next time i see that episode... i kinda pulled it outa my arse, so i can easily be wrong. actually, i'm most likey wrong... heh

-gerf

Re:Only mm?

[Zathrus]

As others have pointed out, the system is for moving wafers, not loading them into the machines. This is nothing new -- I worked at Texas Instruments several years ago and they had a rail system moving lots around the fabs, keyed to barcode scanners and a Unix backend (we used Solaris on oodles of Sparc 5's).

Honestly, it's not clear from the article if the rail system does end-to-end transport, or if it's just a lot shuttle. At TI it was just a shuttle - you'd ask for the next lot to be processed for a particular machine and the system would retrieve the lot and move the tray to you. A technician would pick the basket up off the rail and then use vacuum wands to move the wafers into the loading mechanism for the machine. Once processing was done, vacuum wand the wafers back into the basket and place it back on the track.

This process is error prone -- TI would only hire technicians with at least a high school diploma, but it's still human intensive and distractions can (and did) cause problems. Grab the wafer by the wrong side? Toast. Vacuum seal break while moving the wafer? Shatter. Drop the basket? Many shatters. Accidentilly forget which wafers have been processed already (many of the machines could only load 5 or 10 wafers, and a lot was 24 wafers)? Bad things happen when you double-dope or double-etch wafers.

If IBM's new automation system is end-to-end, meaning that the rail system somehow automatically loads and unloads the wafers to/from machines then that's a real advancement. It would allow you to eliminate 80% of the humans from inside the fab, and humans are one of the primary causes of particles. When you start talking about 65 nm processes, you have to seriously consider eliminating humans as much as possible from the environment. Or at least having them wear self-contained suits -- hair, skin, and clothing all shed humongous particles at a frightening rate (to a silicon wafer that is). And don't even think about being a smoker.

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, i know. but it really just sounded funny to me. it's like they're trying to make 'millimeter' sound like it's a big deal or something. geesh, i got modded down already. what hosers! hehe

Re:Only mm?

[Bartab]

you have to seriously consider eliminating humans

It's been considered, but they taste so good!

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said eliminating, not marinading :)

Re:Only mm?

[los furtive]

"humans are one of the primary causes of particles"

Reminds me of my days as an army instructor yelling at a young recruits because his rifle was full of communism.

Ahhhh, sweet sweet memories.

Re:Only mm?

[apirkle]

A technician would pick the basket up off the rail and then use vacuum wands to move the wafers into the loading mechanism for the machine. Once processing was done, vacuum wand the wafers back into the basket and place it back on the track.

You must have been in one of the older fabs. There are two industry standard automated wafer carrier pods used these days: SMIF and FOUP. SMIF (Standard Mechanical InterFace) is used for 200mm wafers, and FOUP (Front Opening Unified Pod) is used for 300mm wafers. The pods are sealed from their environment and are not opened by fab technicians under normal circumstances. The overhead tracks run directly to each machine in the fab, and each fab tool loads the wafers directly from the pod without human intervention.

A major benefit of all this is that the wafers never enter the cleanroom air - they only encounter the air in the pod, and the air in whatever tools they enter. As a result, the air in the cleanroom doesn't have to meet such a high spec, which leads to big savings on air scrubbers.

Accidentilly forget which wafers have been processed already (many of the machines could only load 5 or 10 wafers, and a lot was 24 wafers)? Bad things happen when you double-dope or double-etch wafers.

This is the reason behind the wireless control system. Old fabs use paper-based flow logging, meaning that each wafer lot has a paper attached to show where it has been and where it has to go. Did I mention that this is special (read: expensive) cleanroom paper, because regular paper flakes off lots of particles that are a no-no in the cleanroom environment? In modern fabs, the SMIF and FOUP pods have electronic tags that carry all the information needed to process the wafer lot - the recipe for which machines it has to go to, what to do when it gets to the machine, notes by technicians, etc etc.

Re:Only mm?

[Zathrus]

You must have been in one of the older fabs

Not at the time... but they're old now. DM4 (ok, it was old), DM5/DP1 (both brand new at the time, DM5 wasn't even finished when I started). They certainly didn't have the sealed pods at the time, but DP1 was the first TI fab to use the robotic rail system.

FWIW, I was in the automation group, so we got pretty wide exposure to most of the fab systems.

The control system may work with the pods now, but it didn't then. Our control system was paperless as well, even in DM4, but that doesn't help when a technician miscounts and winds up putting one wafer into the PVD twice.

The only cleanroom paper was carried by engineers and maintenance workers. I guess the tech foreman had a pad too, but I don't recall the regular workers having them. All the recipes were online -- that was one of the primary things we automated to eliminate mistakes.

Re:Only mm?

[Oroborus]

Quoth gerf:

Oops, that transistor's off a bit again!

hee hee, get it? it's a bit off?

*giggle*

Re:Only mm?

[Technician]

It sounds like they are using the automation hardware for 300mm that Intel is using. The only diffrence is they are using silicon on insulator and a diffrent OS to control the automation. The rest of the FAB is about 2-3 fabs behind intel. Intel D1C, RP1 are all fully automated 300mm fabs and D1D is currently finishing up construction with tool instalation and qualification currently in progress.
A photo of an intel 300mm clean room showing the overhead delivery vehicles and the load ports of the processing tools can be seen here;
http://www.intel.com/jobs/logictech/
The tools themselves are on the other side of the walls.

Re:Only mm?

[Anonymous Coward]

A major benefit of all this is that the wafers never enter the cleanroom air - they only encounter the air in the pod, and the air in whatever tools they enter.

I have a question: How do the wafers get from the boxes (pods) to the tool? Don't they kinda have to move through the cleanroom air? The only other ways I can come up with is moving the box into the tool, which would move some surrounding cleanroom air into the tool with it, and transferring the lot from the box to the tool; and having a sealed tube going from the overhead track to the tool.

Plus, on many tools the wafers are exposed to the air while running (every metrology tool I've worked on and seen). Also many tools' I/O for the lots have them exposed to the cleanroom air.

Just out of curiosity, what fab did you work at where the boxes weren't "opened by fab technicians [I assume this is the term used for the operators] under normal circumstances"? I find it hard to believe there are any fabs which "under normal circumstances" have zero human contact with the lots.

Since no one has said it yet

[emkman]

What about someone sitting in the parking lot with a laptop and an antenna, who hops onto the network and sends fake data to the control system, screwing up all the chips?

Re:Since no one has said it yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, let's see, where to begin? I know. Are you familiar with Michael Faraday? He came up with something called a Faraday Cage. Maybe you should look in to it.

On top of that there's basic stuff like encryption and checking MACs and possibly using a proprietary network-layer protocol to make things extra difficult.

Re:Since no one has said it yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Faraday? Ahh yes, that's right, I should have recognized the name of your gay lover sooner.

Encryption can be hacked and so can any proprietary protocols.

Re:Since no one has said it yet

[Anonymous Coward]

worst - comeback - ever

Re:Since no one has said it yet

[Anonymous Coward]

F*&$ing brain donor.

Re:Since no one has said it yet

[JebusIsLord]

faraday cage isn't encryption - its total physical blockage of certain wavelengths.

802.11 ?

[Em Ellel]

A central control system monitors all stations and tracks wafer lots via 802.11 wireless communications

Well I sure hope they do not have a microwave oven in the breakroom :-D

Re:802.11 ?

[Zed2K]

for 802.11b yes, 802.11a no

Re:802.11 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

or for 802.11g no.

Re:802.11 ?

[Zed2K]

they couldn't possibly be using 802.11g since the spec hasn't even been finalized yet

Millimeter

[handorf]

"tuned to millimeter-precision specs"

Umm... since when is a millimeter a big unit of measurement? My CAR DOOR is built to millimeter precision specs. The engine had bloody well better be .001mm specs.

Silly author... don't quote units when they're meaningless.

Re:Millimeter

[frostgiant]

*ahem*
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38358& threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=126&mode=thread&pid=4106103# 4106143

Re:Millimeter

[handorf]

I realize that it's only the monorail system and really has nothing to do with the individual manufacturing steps. That's why it's so damned funny. It's put in the article as though it's completely damn amazing.

Imagine you read the following sentance:

"The new Ford Mustang engine generates 100,000 bhp, gets 210 mpg and is painted red".

The "painted red" comment means nothing. Same as the millimeter comment.

Re:Millimeter

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... didn't you mean to say "since when is a millimeter a small unit of measurement?"

Re:Millimeter

[tylerhunt]

Alone the millimieter reference would have been as insignificant as you have stated, but in this case it was used as part of an analogy to a monorail system, and I'm sure the monorails they're running out at Disney World don't have that kind of precision.

Little short on the creativity

[Ralph Wiggam]

They spent 2.5 BILLION bucks on this fab and the only thing they could think of naming it was "Building 323". That's so weak. How about SupaFab? Fab:TNG? Absolutely Fab-ulous? MegaFab2k2? It's not like this is a super secret government base like Area 51. Come on IBM, have some flair.

-B

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Sabalon]

Perhaps all the other buildings have ubercool names like FabFactory, Coders Junction, etc... and by choosing Building 323 they were being flairful :)

Then again, when you are in FISHKILL, how flairful of a name do you need (why are there so many towns in NY that end in KILL?)

Re:Little short on the creativity

[debrain]

Well, if they had a touch of Mazda in them:

Building 323: The Chronos Lab

Re:Little short on the creativity

[cacav]

Apparently you've never been to an IBM site before. These sites have dozens or more buildings on them. Each building is numbered. Building 323 just happens to hold the fab.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[NighthawkFoo]

Blame the Dutch. A kill is a group of fish.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[_ph1ux_]

B.U.I.L.D.I.N.G.3.2.3: Biomechanical Upgraded Individual Limited to Dangerous Infiltration and Nocturnal Gratification V.3.23

from c.y.b.o.r.g. at brunching.com

Re:Little short on the creativity

[__aaklbk2114]

No, they should have called it:

Super Building 323 Turbo Champions Special Edition

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Close but no cigar - Fishkill is a combination of two Dutch words, "vis," meaning fish, and "kill," meaning stream. Therefore, Fishkill can be translated as fish stream or fish creek.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think the F.A.B. fab would be fab!

damn infantile geeks!

Re:Little short on the creativity

[yakovlev]

Not just buildings, EVERYTHING is numbered. The TREES usually have little metal tags with numbers on them.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[DarkHelmet]

Come on IBM, have some flair.

Haven't you been watching those IBM commercials on TV?

"Cool" costs them money.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[maxconfus]

the 'Kill' suffix comes from the state's Dutch orgins.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Jucius Maximus]

"They spent 2.5 BILLION bucks on this fab and the only thing they could think of naming it was "Building 323". That's so weak. How about SupaFab? Fab:TNG? Absolutely Fab-ulous? MegaFab2k2? It's not like this is a super secret government base like Area 51. Come on IBM, have some flair."

I feel a slashdot poll coming on ...

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

(why are there so many towns in NY that end in KILL?

I could tell you, but then I would have to ...

Re:Little short on the creativity

[MadMoonie]

Blame the Dutch. A kill is a group of fish.

"Kill" is Dutch for stream or creek. A couple years ago, PETA tried (unsuccessfully) to convince Fishkill to change its name to something a little less violent-sounding... like "Fishsave." Hee hee!

To get back on topic, this is some big news for Linux - beating out Windows on technical merit for use in real-world manufacturing. Or at least it might be big news for Linux once IBM's Services division notices what the Microelectronics division has done and starts telling their clients.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[YottaMatt]

I dunno. When I think of flair, I think of BHA

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the building in the shape of a cube perhaps?

We are IBM. Resistance is futile.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultra-Mega-Super-Hyper-Cheating-Fighting Building Special-Lucky-Championship-Building Of The Year-Gold Edition 2002 XP.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Sabalon]

THANK YOU. All the years I lived up there I was too lazy to find out why it was so prevalant.

And the CNN link was just a funny bonus!

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about trees, but the bathroom and toilets are numbered. Personally, I like Urinal 705-P1. That or Stall 705-S4.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[powerlinekid]

haha... thats pretty funny. I actually work in building 640 and trust me, it was building 323 before the new fab. I actually like walking around those buildings, they remind me of 60's spy/cold war movies cuz they're design is definitly dated.

Re:Little short on the creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

omg that was too much.

people are looking at me funny now..

why must you be SO FUNNY?!?!

Re:Little short on the creativity

[ItaliaMatt]

Well - how many pieces of flair would they need? 37? 38? Umm... you have my swingline stapler...

Re:Little short on the creativity

[maartynp]

kill is dutch for creek, or rill. as you may recall, ny was colonised by the dutch first and prior to its renaming nyc was new amsterdam. doest thou forget?

Big Fab, Lots of jobs.

[SWPadnos]

Good thing they just laid off 1000 people at their Essex Junction, VT fab.

Re:Big Fab, Lots of jobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

People in Vermont are faggots. They should be nuked. Vermont is a faggot state.

If I love Lucy was around these days

[Anonymous Coward]

There'd be an episode about Lucy at the chip fab plant, and the conveyor belt would get out of control, and she'd ruin millions of dollars in chips. It'd be hilarious.

Already heard that one

[Foozy]

...20,000 sensors are used to track wafer lots in front-opening unified pods that are transported from one tool to the next on rails using linear induction motors. The setup resembles an intricate monorail system tuned to millimeter-precision specs. A central control system monitors all stations...

Anyone remember the Denver airport baggage handling system fiasco?

IBM != Flair

[doublem]

"IBM" and "Flair" are two words that just don't go together.

Oops. I was wrong Google says there are 12,100 hits.

Re:IBM != Flair

[bobdotorg]

Upon further review, it was found that the vast majority of thse pages were quoted as saying, "I.B.M., that company with no flair whatsoever...."

Re:IBM != Flair

[Ralph Wiggam]

On topic AND funny. Someone didn't see the movie that should be required viewing for all Slashdotters.

-B

Re:IBM != Flair

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding! You weren't wrong, the fact that there were only 12,100 hits just proves that they don't go together.

Re:IBM != Flair

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent UP!

What sort of chips?

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

So what sort of chips are they planning to manufacture with such bleeding edge technologies? Is IBM trying to squeeze into the PC processor market or is this for more custom jobs?

Re:What sort of chips?

[entrox]

According to rumours, IBM will unveil a PPC-based desktop processor - something like a Power4 Lite - on October 15th. Some people speculate that Apple will ditch Motorola in favour of IBM and get the new breed of processors from them, since Motorola is lagging behind and doesn't seem to like having Apple as customer (apparently they got burnt when Jobs killed the clone market).

So perhaps they will fab the next-generation (G5?) processor for Apple there. I at least hope so :)

Re:What sort of chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is in the foundry market now. Making chips for other people. But also this COULD be used for PowerPC and Power processors. From what I understand, its meant for foundry services though. (I work for IBM Global Services)

Re:What sort of chips?

[Duck_Taffy]

Perhaps some of these?

dual-core Power4 processor aimed at the desktop (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26594.html )

Re:What sort of chips?

[afidel]

Much more likely is that they will use it to shring the size of the Power4 die down to something sane. With 2 cores and the huge amout of l3 cache they place on one die the Power4 is I believe the biggest core currently being manufactured.

Re:What sort of chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you forgotten the million-quantum dot chip already?

No way.

[Stoutlimb]

What are the odds that a chip manufacturing plant this big has converted their entire warehouse building into a giant faraday cage?

Hell, I would.

Re:No way.

[JWW]

Convert? Our warehouse acts like one already, some of our materials have much better absorbtion than steel and concrete. It really causes trouble when you actaully want to deploy wireless there.

Re:No way.

[mmol_6453]

I've always wondered if thick (1 cm) waveguide tubes would be sufficient to pipe wireless signals through or around blocking walls.

Any comments, people?

16,000 employees?

[Anonymous Coward]

New chips are nice and all, but when are we going to discuss lobbying congress to break up Microsoft?

IBM just cut 16,000 employees, 80% of which were computer services people(many Linux and Java guys). Microsoft is the Standard Oil of the software industry...except worse.

When are we gonna move on this?!?

Re:16,000 employees?

[cmdr_beeftaco]

tomorrow

What about "Strained Silicon?"

[wray]

I read a few days ago about Intel's plan to use "Strained Silicon" in their 90 nm process. Here's the link
Quote from the article:

Simply put, you want transistors to be able to pass as much current as possible when they're switched on and to pass no current when they're switched off. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and transistors don't always behave as they should. Technologies such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI) help stop current from flowing when it shouldn't (leakage current) and technologies such as Strained Silicon help increase the amount of current that's allowed to flow when it's needed (drive current).

I saw no mention of IBM doing this so I wondered, is this patented by Intel? Even so, if you are setting about to make the most advanced FAB, it would seem that this technology should be licensed.

Re:What about "Strained Silicon?"

[Grishnakh]

Patented by Intel?? Are you kidding? Since when did Intel ever invent any groundbreaking technologies? Every time I look at slashdot, it seems I see another story about new great new technology invented by IBM (and patented too--actually using the patent system for what it was intended). I've never seen any useful invention by Intel. Intel just takes other peoples' inventions and uses them.

Re:What about "Strained Silicon?"

[cheezedawg]

I know, I know, you are not supposed to feed the trolls, but...

How about:
- The world's first microprocessor (the 4004 in 1971)
- The world's first general purpose microprocessor (the 8080 in 1974)
- The PCI bus
- USB
- The ethernet standard (along with Xerox and DEC)
- The first math-coprocessor (the 8087 in 1976) that was used as the basis for the IEEE floating point standard in 1985

And if you look at the hot technologies today, Intel is involved in most of them too (3GIO, SATA, etc).

Re:What about "Strained Silicon?"

[Grishnakh]

Ok... what do any of these have to do with chip fabrication technologies? Such as copper, SOI, etc.? I'll give you the 4004, but that was a long time ago, and everything since is pretty unrelated to basic silicon fabrication technology.

USB isn't much of an invention, either; it's just intel's answer to Firewire, which is technically far superior. Intel made USB 1) to avoid the royalties on firewire, and 2) to make something which required a host processor (made by Intel of course), unlike firewire which is peer-to-peer.

I'd be willing to bet that Xerox and/or DEC did most of the technical work on ethernet. DEC had a long history of technological achievements (i.e. Alpha processor).

PCI was nothing new either. New to the Intel-based PC world with its crappy ISA bus, yes, but to the rest of the computing world? No.
That was just Intel realizing they needed to push a decent bus standard so PCs wouldn't stay crippled by ISA. Smart? Yes. Revolutionary, patentable invention with no prior art? No.

Re:What about "Strained Silicon?"

[cheezedawg]

Ok- you want chip fabrication technologies?

-Intel chairs the EUV (extreme ultra-violet) lithography consortium
-MOS, HMOS, CHMOS, and CMOS processes were all developed by Intel
-Nitrided gate oxide technology (solve the hot electron effect)
-Clock multiplying (integrating a Phase Locked Loop on the chip)
-Intel was the first to use 300 mm wafers and the 130 nm process
-Intel developed the worlds fastest 20 nm transistor in 2001

USB was designed as a low cost replacement for legacy ports, and it has been very successful at that. It wasn't until USB 2.0 that it was designed to compete directly with Firewire. And the PCI bus beat out several other replacements of the ISA bus (VESA local bus anyone?). I would call any technology that is used as widespread as the PCI bus and has remained competitive for over 10 years a significant contribution.

Re:What about "Strained Silicon?"

[JebusIsLord]

I do know that AMD for instance filed for more patents last year than Intel did, but why the hate-on for Intel? Did they fire you or something?

802.11 wireless?

[jasonditz]

And sales of brightly colored chalk skyrocket.

These seem to be INTEL processors!

[PaulBu]

I'm wondering why would they considered Windows (apparently running on Intel processors), when from pure PR point of view a bunch of PowerPC-based machines (Macs, anyone? :)) would look soo much better. OTOH, most probably tool vendors do build Pentiums into their machines...

PaulBu

Re:These seem to be INTEL processors!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha! And the workers wear tutus!!

Re:These seem to be INTEL processors!

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA! _AND_ drive those gay-ass new VW Beetles with their little flower holder!

FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[nomadicGeek]

Let's start off by saying that I like Linux and I think that it is great. It sounds like IBM did some fantastic things at this plant and I applaud the innovation.

The Windows system fails after 6 or 7 day? I work with Industrial controls all the time. As I write this, I am working on an NT based server that monitors chemical production. It has only been rebooted 4 times in the last year (I'm waiting for a backup to complete so I can change tapes hence the time to cruise by /.). The reboots are due more to external factors than the box needing it. Reliability is not an issue in the Windows based systems that I build.

If the Windows based system failed after 6 or 7 days then they f'ed something up. There are a lot of things that you can blame on Bill Gates but I don't think that is one of them.

I think that it is great that they are using Linux. I would like to see a lot more of this type of thing. I'd love to take a look at what they have done, but the crap about the Windows system failing is FUD. It smells just as bad coming from the Linux crowd as it does coming from MS.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt. Next contestant. You have insufficient statistics. If one of their boxen chokes under windows every 7 days, then that's 7x1700 cpu days, or about 35 years between problems. So come back when you NT box has 34 years w/o failure.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta remember, just because you don't see something happening doesn't mean it's not happening. There are hundreds if not thousands of configurations for OS's. M$ cannot afford to test against all of them. There WILL be problems for any given OS for any given HW configuration. Period.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[SirSlud]

There is no *best*. Only your setup, your software, your thing. There's nothing to say that their software doesn't hit some bits in Windows that your software doesn't, and thats what causes it to crash. Or they exploit various weaknesses in Windows that your software doesn't.

I dont think theres any intended *this is always better than that if you set it up properly* claim being made here, just the simple fact that the MS install stood for 6 days, and the Linux for 3 months. If I were in charge of the money, I'd go Linux. If the MS had stood for 3 months, and Linux gone down after 6 days, I'd go with Windows.

4 reboots a year aint bad, but we regularly push over a year (FreeBSD, if youre curious):

2:37PM up 385 days, 10:18, 1 user, load averages: 0.75, 0.73, 0.79

4 reboots to me sounds like alot, but then again, we're doing different things on our boxen now, arn't we, so different behaviour can be expected? :)

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[sean23007]

If MS had stood for 3 months and Linux had gone down after 6 days, Slashdot would be making a whole different noise. They would be saying that the guys at IBM did something wrong, and that if they'd changed such and such a setting, they could have gotten better reliability out of the Linux system. You're right, there is no *best* system configuration: there are only very good ones for a certain situation. Conversely, there is no *worst* system configuration: there are only very bad ones for a certain situation. It may well have been the case that the Linux system was set up very well to handle the load that IBM needed it to perform, whereas Windows had not been configured to handle said load, and was thus a very bad configuration for that situation.

What he was saying is that had IBM set up Windows properly, they could have gotten much better reliability than 6-7 days. In order for that much of a difference to occur, they had to have made a mistake.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference:

If MS had stood for 3 months and Linux for 6 days, they WOULD have made a mistake.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[SirSlud]

>If MS had stood for 3 months and Linux had gone down after 6 days, Slashdot would be making a whole different noise

No, had that been the case, the story wouldn't have been posted. ;)

More seriously tho, IBM has a vested interest in Linux, plus probably has more internal native *nix expertise than Windows. If thats the case, they still chose the better OS for them.

Anybody can make any OS stand up for awhile; I think the point is that the market winner is the first one you can get to meet your performance and uptime requirements, not neccessarily or esotarically the best OS given a level config/admin playing field. People have to make decisions based on what they have, not what you or I they think they should have.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering neither Linux or any flavor of Windows (or DOS for that matter) is 35 years old, you're both wrong when you look at it in CPU hours.

Furthermore, if you're implying that Linux *can* have 35 years w/o failure... that's just shortsighted.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Who made the software you use? Unless you're at a MASSIVE chemical corporation, I'll bet it's some standard piece of software, made by a specialty company. The software IBM is using is something they wrote for this fab plant. That means it's brand new, and that means it's buggy. Since it's buggy, any greater level of robustness in the OS is valuable. Thus *nix could easily stay up that much longer than NT, just because it's more robust to software and driver failure than NT.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be suprised if the Windows software and the Linux software were written by different groups (different subcontractors, even). IBM put them into a bake-off, and the Linux stuff performed better on the "first pass" ("first pass" might have been several attempts, different revs, who knows what). The Windows stuff could likely have been just as bulletproof... it just wasn't when it was tried.

And again, IBM are in business to make money, not to use Windows or Linux. Someone doing costing for this place said "the linux system works? the windows guys are still doing revs? Fuck 'em, get those linux guys into the production suite then".

You suppose they're doing the whole place in labview?

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[p3d0]

Reliability is not an issue in the Windows based systems that I build.

Maybe you don't push the boxes as hard as they do?

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[sean23007]

I agree. I think they made the correct decision in choosing Linux, because they obviously didn't have too much trouble getting it to work very well for their purposes. They surely do have many experts in house, which helps, and that should factor in their decision. If their experts had been better at Windows, the decision might have been just a little bit more difficult.

The point is that IBM's results, and their decision based on those results, should not be grounds for people to claim that Linux is 15 times more reliable than Windows in all cases. That is not what the article says, and that's just not true.

If they got Linux working very well very quickly, it is the best choice for that application, regardless of whether or not it is actually the best OS for the job. The same would be true if the positions had been reversed. Big companies need to make unbiased decisions based on performance, not stereotypes and superstitions.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think those 1700 boxes are redundant. in fact they probably each monitor a tool/line/station. in that case you did the math wrong.

if one box chokes every 7 days, and you have 1700 boxes, that's 1700 boxes that choke every 7 days, or 1 every 5.9 minutes.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at a hospital, we have scheduled reboots of all NT servers on a 3 day basis. This is because we used to have unexpected crashes on a regular basis.

I don't think it's out of line to claim windows is that bad, when this solution came straight from the MS consultant they sent out.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[jelle]

Computer systems in an ASIC fab cannot be compared with monitoring PCs in a chemical fab.

ASIC design and test files are huge and on the equipment interfaces for testers, they deal with very high data throughputs.

Plus, at 4 reboots per year, that is an average uptime of less than 100 days, that would be a really bad performance in unix world.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[praksys]

Finest quality astroturf I have seen for a while. Almost looks like the real thing.

If you think this is an unreasonable acusation then read the message I am replying to. He assumes that there is FUD flying when someone just says that a Wondows system wouldn't stay up.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify what was said in the article without saying too much: for the evaluations a Linux based system was compared to a Windows based system. As the article indicated: infrastructure is ... controlled by some 1,700 1-GHz microprocessors able to access some 600 terabytes of data. The system that was evaluated and which is refered to by the article is actually comprised of many PCs required to run the fab. Therefore it doesn't mean that each Windows based system used in the evaluations crapped out every 6 or 7 days. It meant that when the system was using Windows, failures occurred every week due to the OS-related failures of one of its Windows-based components. After transition to the Linux based architecture, hardware failures became more prominent than OS failures.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[fferreres]

I don't know, but I could not afford any Windows system in my company. It's not like we can't pay once for a license, the thing is all the machines run *unattended* 4000 miles away from our headquaters.

We used Red Hat, and we REMOTELY reinstalled the entire OS for a Slackware Linux without the need to even ask our ISP to hardboot the machine even once.

After they that reboot, we expect the machine to NEVER come down and to only require some patches (security).

After the reboot, the machine's been up for half a year (load average is about 0.9 so it's not completely quiet).

I couldn't have trusted Windows for that. I know I'd rather be using Windows as desktop (provided i have a *nix nearby i can login) though gnome is fine. But I am SURE I couldt use Windows at our servers.

Sure, .Net will force us to use Windows at some point and we'll have to comply (or suffer), but that's a monopoly "choice" we'll have to follow, as the goverments are deep in the monopolists money (free markets are no use for them...and the consumer are just things that vote and that lie to listen to lies...at least in my country).

I hope we can keep using Linux for the longest possible.

Re:FUD just as bad when it comes from Linux crowd

[JebusIsLord]

not to mention: 1700 license copies of windows? Owch!

Any experience out there?

[maxconfus]

Since this is largely in my backyard and I have little experience with this type of manufacturing and being an I.T. worker always trolling for new ways to who also has UNIX/LINUX/JAVA/C++ application development experience, does anyone know what kind of knowledge base these shops work off of? What types of apps? And recommendations for getting in the door? Thanks!

Re:Any experience out there?

[scott1853]

Based on what I've seen in the market, there's a high demand for people with 10+ years of Java experience. But you usually also need about 20 years of VB experience in OS development.

Re:Any experience out there?

[jackjumper]

My company is delivering a 300mm device prober down there soon - the interface to the production tools themselves is SECS-II/GEM. This has been around for ages, but there's a pile of 300mm specific stuff.

Check out this for an overview...

Re:Any experience out there?

[damien_kane]

Based on what I've seen in the market, there's a high demand for people with 10+ years of Java experience. But you usually also need about 20 years of VB experience in OS development.

I laugh at these postingsin the paper and on online job boards, as should many of you (yes they actually do exist, and are quite common)
These are usually the companies that also require you to have A+ and an MCSE/MCSA cert.

a little info from AMD

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the pleasure of touring AMD's Austin, Texas chip fab. They said that one of the biggest problems with photolithography chip making is that the chip fabs cost so much, the cost is projected to cost more as time goes on and the fabs only have about a 6 year life.

I have to plug AMD a little here since I saw they way they do things. They are 1/7 the size of Intel and hold a very respectable market share. Also, the atmosphere, campus, and people were all great. They also take care of their customers. In fact, they hooked one of us (out of 300) up with a brandy new 1.4 Athlon machine free. We also got to see their unreleased (at the time, maybe not so now) Hammer board. Very cool.

where's my edit button? :)

[entrox]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot to include a link: Micro processor Forum.

Quote:

Peter Sandon, Senior Processor Architect, Power PC Organization,
IBM Microelectronics IBM is disclosing the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s.

Warchalk!

[PhoenxHwk]

A central control system monitors all stations and tracks wafer lots via 802.11 wireless communications.

Let's go warchalk/warfly/warbike/warwalk/wardrive it!

Re:Warchalk!

[Anonymous Coward]

warchalk easter eggs on there chips?

Your sig...

[dillon_rinker]

-- IANAEG

I interpreted that as "I Am Not Alderac Entertainment Group."

Re:This is really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sept. 11th was a bad thing I agree, but grow up and get over it. What's done is done.

Read the freakin story!

[PackMan97]

produce chips using all three of the sophisticated technologies on the industry's bleeding edge: low-k dielectrics, copper interconnect and silicon-on-insulator based transistors

It really isn't that hard to see where IBM will be working with silicon-on-insulator technologies.

Re:Read the freakin story!

[wray]

Uhhh... wow take your own advice! I am talking about STRAINED SILICON, not SOI.

Geesh :~/

Re:Read the freakin story!

[Anonymous Coward]

The articles I read two years ago on strained Si were all written by IBM scientists.

Monorail?

[GuntherAEPi]

"The setup resembles an intricate monorail system tuned to millimeter-precision specs."

That's right, a monorail, just like the ones in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook and Brockway!

Re:Monorail?

[p3d0]

LOL--Best episode ever.

"I call the big one 'Bitey'." -Homer

Re:Monorail?

[trybywrench]

... and by golly it put them on the map!

Re:This is really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

To think that people are focusing on something like this after December 7, 1941!

1024 x 1024

[oliverthered]

There making 1024 x 1024 arrays of qauntum dots of corse.

WARNING: money talks...

[wray]

Not to throw cold water on the linux movement, but don't forget that IBM has a ton of money invested in Linux, and there is motivation there to show that it is better. It is possible that they really didn't try to get Windows working all that hard.

Just something for the conspiracy theorist in all of us :-)

Re:WARNING: money talks...

[topham]

IBM being what they are they would use anything that might show an advantage, even if it was from their competition.

IBM eats its own young. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes it doesn't matter with a company that large, and sometimes it's a big mistake.

They keep doing it though.

1Ghz processors

[wiredog]

I've worked in motion control, although nothing that big, and 1 GHz processors are overkill for that application. Heck, we got decent results with 486-50s.

Reliability?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I work with Industrial controls all the time."

"I am working on an NT based server that monitors chemical production."

"It has only been rebooted 4 times in the last year".

"Reliability is not an issue in the Windows based systems that I build."

You know I'm REALLY glad I don't live next to a chemical plant.

Re:Reliability?

[tjw]

The thing that scares me is the part about visitng sites on the internet with IE on a "server that monitors chemical production".

Re:Reliability?

[nomadicGeek]

I said I was working on the server.

I was surfing from my laptop while waiting on a backup to complete so that I could switch tapes. Nothing else to do for a few minutes.

Re:Reliability?

[nomadicGeek]

Those clouds can spread pretty far though. Remember to run across the wind.

Like I said, the reboots were more a matter of external factors not the OS requiring a reboot. A couple of time, the mouse froze because of the KVM switch.

Don't worry, the server only collects data. The process is controlled by a very reliable embedded system so you can sleep soundly tonight. You only need to worry about terrorist attacks, someone kidnapping your children, shark attacks, west nile virus, El Nino, and the trading habits of Martha Stewart.

Happy birthday!

[Anonymous Coward]

An early happy first birthday to the "Geeks get some priorities" troll!

Woot!

Monorail!!

[Anonymous Coward]

monorail...MonoRail...MONORAIL!!

The missing peice

[kopper187]

"An internally developed master software system called SiView controls all manufacturing operations. An IBM spokesperson said the manufacturing execution system is being licensed to others for fab control."

Too bad SiView does a crappy job of allowing manufacturing data to be brought into the MES level of control. Yes, they track lots going to/fro process tools, and yes, they do recipe checks at load/run time on those lots, BUT the key ingredient is missing: integration of actual process data into the MES level of control.

What happens if a strip chamber fouls up and goes unnoticed? EVERY wafer following the first defect with be ruined. To prevent it? Monitor a few choice process parameters, feed them into the MES system, and do continuous monitoring. When a hard tolerance is exceeded, HALT the tool. Then you save those wafers that would have passed through the unknown bad chamber. Unfortunatley, for IMB at least, SiView requires an un-godly amount of integration to bring that process data in-line. Don't doubt it: I was at the table during those integration discussions and it was ugly.

If process data is brought up to the MES level of control, the entire SEMI industry could increase production effiency 10-30%!!! That would make for billions in increased revenues. Sheesh... and they, all, still put off those projects. (hence my former employer went buh-bye)

I'd go into more detail, but unless you work in semiconductor automation, it's quite booring stuff.

Furthermore, SiView, IMO, takes a back-seat to Promis, especially from the operator usability standpoint. Don't even get me started on the Brooks/PRI stuff. (And if you mention Honeywell, well, you'd must be as bad as them!)

Re:The missing peice

[waferhead]

No, please, go into detail, as I am one of the elves working on equipment, and am interested. Won't be long before it's just the process guys and us. BTW, is the SECS/GEM interface THAT bad? Not doing it myself, it seems the whole thing needs a pile of PERL scripts, a database to keep track of stuff, and there you go...

Re:The missing peice

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if I'll post here it would make finally get through to you guys :) if you are one of the elves down on the floor, make sure that your tool is comm/online/remote before calling support.

Re:The missing peice

[waferhead]

add the "communicate" command into a cron job and remove all doubt...

Re:The missing peice

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe us "elves" will make sure it's in comm/offline/local the next time we call.

And I thought we were "wafer monkeys".

Thank god I don't have to work on those annoying Eudoras anymore.

Re:The missing peice

[kopper187]

SECS/GEM is uglier than the old AT commands for modems! here is a sample of SECS communication:

Host(H): Can I say something?
Tool(T):Yes.
H:Hello!
T:I got it.
T:It was 2 bytes.
H:Correct.
H:Can I say something?
T:Yes.
H:Are you online?
T:Yes.
H:I heard you.
H:It was 4 bytes.
T:Correct.

and so forth...

The block structure is just as bad. And, max speed is generally 19200 on any tool older than 2000. All GEM does is add a higher set of state/control commands that allows the host to online the tool, send a recipe, and start process. Not that any fabs really go that far with the host.

Check out the eSES, for a good view of a decent SECS/GEM/HSMS to data management driver.

Re:The missing peice

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were that easy it would have been done a long time ago.

Re:The missing peice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if its in in comm/offline/local be prepared to call in twice. I suppose you are talking about Enduras, right?

Linux, not AIX

[Tall_Rob]

It's interesting that an IBM plant's lines run Linux, not IBM's own AIX . . .

Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

John Kelly of IBM:"Today we can't even imagine the products that will be produced as a result of this new state-of-the-art fab.". Well, I can. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Buh?

[ebbomega]

I used to use windows for relatively simple things: Word processing, Web browsing (Opera), e-mail/usenet (Netscape), Music listening (WinAmp), and Music writing (Impulse Tracker under DOS).

If my computer was on for more than about 30 hours, it would crash the second I would try to do something. If I was using my computer for a period of more than 10 hours, its lack of memory management would grind my entire system to a halt, to the point that the next time I would open up Opera, it would take approximately 4 minutes to load up.

Granted, it wasn't a state-of-the-art computer, but it sucks that my processor efficiency was inversely proportional to the length of time that my computer had been up and running, and that usually around a day or so after I had turned on my computer, the computer would decide that it can't do anymore and crash.

Now, I use Linux for pretty much everything that I used windows for. Word Processing, Web browsing (Opera), Mail/News (Mozilla), Playing music (XMMS) and Writing Music (Impulse Tracker 3). Furthermore, I'm hosting a webserver, ftp server and I'm looking to get an ssh server up and running soon. My box has not been rebooted for the last 15 days, and not a single thing has crashed, slowed down or showed any slight problem to do with doing the things I want it to.

Just because your experience with Windows products has been relatively positive doesn't make your case the rule rather than the exception. I've heard plenty of similar problems with many different people. My example is just one of many stories I've heard of people who have tried Windows and can't keep their boxes on long enough despite the things they do being simply mundane every-day things, nothing really resource-draining at all...

Re:Buh?

[Aexia]

I have Win98 running on an older box on our home network serving as a glorified file server. It's just sitting at the password prompt. I've stripped off just about everything I can from the machine and still have it run Win98.

And it'll lock up. Not as much lately, but that's probably because we haven't been accessing the hard drive on it as much lately. I keep meaning to find some ultra-basic OS to run on it but I haven't had the time or the energy.

My new computer which has Windows XP is much much more reliable but I have to reboot it at least once a day, not because it locked up/BSOD'd(though I sometimes get that) but because stuff will stop working. Sound will become staticky(Yes I have updated drivers) in games, web browsing will stop working(both IE and mozilla) after a while though other net apps will be working fine. When I was still on dial-up, if I dialed in after disconnecting, the connection would simply not work until I rebooted.

Re:Buh?

[Anonymous Coward]

XP is fairly reliable. But it seems every time I get my hands on a XP box I can manage to throw the mem managment slightly out of wack, or get the disk to thrash.

I don't have these problems in FreeBSD. Therefore I tend to believe for me FreeBSD is better.

It's a tired argument, and to be quite simple if you don't think the cost of your first *nix install is worth the effort to increase your productivity at least 3%, then you shouldn't try it. It takes a certain kind of person to like *nix.

Not really...

[FatSean]

If you had 1/2 a clue about the difference between the two, it would make perfect sense.

Re:Not really...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you explain it to him. If you have nothing useful to contribute, please keep quiet.

We tried another name but...

[SysKoll]

Oy. When we Nooyoykers first named the towns here, we tried to use name ending in "hug" and "fuzzy", but the freakin' Vermont and California "sensitive" cuties beat us and copyrighted the names.

Now all our town names end in KILL and MAIM and WAR and TAXES and it's all their fault!.

Linux In Automation

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of Linux in Automation, anyone interested in the subject might want to check out http://mat.sf.net

EULA

[SEWilco]

"...shall NOT be used for a chip fabrication factory nor any other equipment essential for your enterprise..."

Well, it's ALMOST the latest technology...

[Gorphrim]

Intel is preparing to move to produce 0.09nm chips, while this article claims IBM's will do 0.10nm (although I suspect they meant 0.13nm, as this is a more "standard" size and is mentioned later in the article).

Re:Well, it's ALMOST the latest technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

What IBM calls .10 nm is really .10 nm design rules. Intel... Is an interesting kinda place.

Design your own processor!?!

[stinkydog]

1>Design the ultimatle processor (or GPU)
2>Park in parking lot
4>Hack Wireless Infrastructure (will they turn on WEP?)
4>Remove finished product from dumpster
5>Party with you hardwarez

SD

Try uploading some AMD designs if you really want to mess with Intel.

why not aix?

[Billly Gates]

AIX I assume would scale a hell of alot better due to the combination of supperior hardware architecture of IBM's Unix machines as well as its more mature OS that was designed from the ground up to handle many processors and carry on very large loads. I assume a chip manufacturing plant uses a hell of alot of computing resources like a wharehouse, which many fortune 1000 companies still use mainframes for. A web server is different and a lower end machine with linux might be appropriate unless its a very big e-commerce site. This seems to be linux's killer app right now.

I think this continuation of recommending linux rather then AIX Unix might hurt IBM Unix sales in the long run like it has with Sun. A true Unix server is hell of alot more expensive then an intel Linux one which would hurt IBM's bottom's line. At least if I was at IBM's marketing department I would only recommend Linux for those on a budget or who have only little to moderate computing needs and AIX for anything else.

Re:why not aix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at things from the inside out, this article and commments made are somewhat misleading. The heart of the fab facility, the SIview apllication, DOES run on AIX. What is run on Linux is the application which allows the fab tools to communicate with SIview. Yes, Linux is an integral part of the facility, but it is not ALL Liunx. There are even some Windows boxes with certian responsibilities. But, the Linux boxes have proven to be far more reliable and incredibly stable.

Re:why not aix?

[PaulBu]

But in the fab they do not need a centralized multi-processor server to handle very large loads! What they have is a distributed system with maybe hundreds of individual tools each with its own processor, and the programs running on these processors are rather simple, something like:
Wait for chamber lock to be closed, switch on that pump for 10 min, ramp this voltage at 1 V/min for half an hour, wait for an hour, open chamber lock.

Where is huge computational load here? OTOH, it should be done in real time and be flexible enough to access/reprogram remotely. This is the reason to use something light-weight (like Linux) and why they want WiFi (not to run 1700 ethernet cables all over the place).

By the way, are you SURE that there is a single high-end IBM machine for which wireless lan card exists? ;-)

PaulBu

Three Months?

[SEWilco]

The article does not say whether the Linux system had a flaw after three months, or if the test ended after three months.

Now they need to build next door a factory to make automated factory systems...then a factory to make robots which can assemble automated factories...

AutoCAD's file format is proprietary. I guess you'll have to use a different format to give the robots the plans for your very own factory.

Denver Internationl Airport

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe DIA should hire IBM to fix what is wrong with the automated baggage system at DIA. It uses mostly MS. Sadly, the mechanics have been overdesigned, but the logic was poorly designed.

See Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

See Linux Go.
Go Linux, Go.

Does anyone else wonder if Linus had this in mind when he started the whole monster?

That's amazing

[soybean]

millimeter-precision specs?!?!
How in the world can they acheave this?
I don't belive it.

Re:That's amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called 'mechanical engineering'. Look into it.

This wasn't FUD

[doublem]

It didn't read like FUD to me. It was a simple statement of fact. I've seen Windows do the yo-yo thing, and I've seen it do a passable impression of BSD style uptime. Same for Linux. Who knows why it went down? Nothing is said about the cause of the issues. Perhaps the developers were from a *nix background, and thus did a better job on the Linux version because it was closer to what they were used to. Perhaps the Windows Boxen had a device driver conflict that no one resolved. Perhaps they had to hack together some custom driver and happened to stumble across an interface that was easier to code in Linux than Windows.

Or then again they could have just made the mistake of applying W2K Service Pack 3, in which case they're hosed no matter what they do. That patch killed every box we tried it on. Stay away from Service Pack Three! Stay Away!!!!!!

Re:This wasn't FUD

[mabinogi]

> Or then again they could have just made the mistake of applying W2K Service Pack 3, in which case they're hosed no matter what they do. That patch killed every box we tried it on. Stay away from Service Pack Three! Stay Away!!!!!!

I keep hearing this, but I haven't had any issues on the couple of machines I've installed it on....
how did it kill the boxes?, what were the symptoms? Is it only W2k server that's a problem, or does it affect Pro as well?

I'm interested to know, because I have avoided putting it on any important machines so far...

Re:This wasn't FUD

[doublem]

Haven't tried it on Server, just Pro.

If EVERYONE had massive problems, Microsoft wouldn't have released the patch, as they would have had the same issues. I have a feeling this is going to be one of those feast or famine patches. It'll either work or cause massive pain.

Problems I had at home:

Frequent freezes (Let's leave the MS bashing aside for now)

Spontaneous reboots.

Inability to access the RAID controller on the I-Will Motherboard (System would pause for 20 seconds waiting for data from drive, and then give me a "drive not responding" error before corrupting the file)

Frequent crashes of explorer.exe (Of the kind I only saw in crufty Win98 installs before)

Frequent Blue Screens when connected to the Internet.

Uninstalling at home fixed most the problems, but I may need to do a full install and format to get my old stability back.

Problems on my work computer:

Forced to kill explorer.exe in the Task Manager to unfreeze system.

Even after uninstalling SP 3, I still have Explorer crashing on shutdown, requiring about a dozen clicks to get through all the individual error messages that pop up.

New memory leaks requiring at least a reboot a day, on a system that previously went a couple weeks between reboots.

Problems our network admin had on a test system:

Network connection issues.

Mysterious freezes he didn't have time to track down.

All in all, I'd say leave this one alone for a while. Three out of three installs had issues on systems that were running just fine before the install, and most the problems went away after the Service Packs were uninstalled. (I suspect the uninstall is less than 100% effective.)

Most the issues seemed to center around network connectivity and the explorer.exe windows shell. If you're running lightstep as your shell and no network connections you should be fine. ;)

All the issues I described were ones that did not exist before the Service Pack.

If you don't need a specific fix in the Service Pack, I wouldn't install it.

Good Luck.

Good Idea

[4of12]

Lest this happen to you.

No, the wafers do move directly from tool to tool

[Anonymous Coward]

The automation system is tool-to-tool movement of wafers and the goal is indeed to try to eliminate the need for almost all of the human operators.

All of the 300mm manufacturing equipment is linked into a fabwide automation network through a series of standards so that each individual wafer in the fab is tracked through each of 400 processing steps. At any moment the system knows exactly where every wafer is, what processes it is gone through so far, and where it needs to go next. Then a master scheduling program acts to efficently move the wafers to the next available tool. The goal is to improve the cycle time of moving the wafers through the fab as well as reducing labor costs. It's a pretty slick system and looks damn cool. It's also frightening when you realize that a single cassette of 25 wafers near the end of line is worth well over $1 million and they are speeding around overhead.

Also, although IBM is leading in automation implementation right now slmost all of the other 300mm fabs worldwide are putting in similar systems.

Now there's an idea...

[garf]

How about a community CPU? All interested parties to gather around IBM's fab plant, as people hack through the wireless network they get to add their own designed parts of the CPU...

Hours later the wafer pops out...

if, if, if

[jelle]

But it didn't, did it?

Anyway, if it did, it would have been fixed.

IBM knows as almost no other how to apply 'Use the Source Luke' UTSL and fix things. You can't UTSL Windows.

Re:if, if, if

[sean23007]

Anyway, if it did, it would have been fixed.

No, if it did, they would have used Windows. The point is that they want to be able to use the best option for the job, and that includes the speed with which they can set up the system properly.

Re:if, if, if

[jelle]

"No, if it did, they would have used Windows. The point is that they want to be able to use the best option for the job, and that includes the speed with which they can set up the system properly."

You're assuming fixing Linux would have taken more time than fixing the windows harddisk thrashing that they encountered?

Reliability is not an issue

[Tony-A]

Reliability is not an issue in the Windows based systems that I build.

For most of us, reliability is very much an issue in anything we build.

Re:Reliability is not an issue

[nomadicGeek]

I guess I should have stated that a little more clearly. Reliability is certainly a design goal.

What I was trying to say is that I have windows systems running which do not suffer from reliability problems. They meet the needs that they were intended to meet.

I've found that in most manufacturing facilities that the mechanical equipment is the limiting factor in a line's uptime. Even a Windows system is more reliable :)

I also take into account that various parts of the system will be down from time to time and try to insure that it will not interrupt the process. I can buffer data in the embedded controls in case the PC needs to be rebooted or locks up, I also have to assume that other parts of the system such as the network will go down as well.

Over the last 2 years I have noticed that the PC related problems have been reduced greatly. Windows 2000 was a big improvement. I've also gotten better at figuring out what is causing problems and eliminating the problem.

pffft...

[Anonymous Coward]

'The state of automation in Building 323 is such that 20,000 sensors are used to track wafer lots in front-opening unified pods that are transported from one tool to the next on rails using linear induction motors. The setup resembles an intricate monorail system tuned to millimeter-precision specs. A central control system monitors all stations and tracks wafer lots via 802.11 wireless communications.'

Yea, if you like shit.

robots only fab ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, finally nearly no people engaged in this huge fab ! Only CEO and bunch of bots. People shoul reconsider twice their employment plan, just to not be an easy substitute for a bot.

Re:robots only fab ??

[waferhead]

Ah grasshopper, warm intelligent bodies are still needed, perhaps more than ever, as now you have to keep the "bots" running, as well as all the neat, Winnebago size, multi million dollar tools.

They just won't be the ones moving stuff from point "a" to "b", and hitting "start".

Getting things fixed "right" in this environment is not optional.

Re:robots only fab ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and all those robots will be buying the chips, right?

Coincidence department newsflash:

[Anonymous Coward]

Starbucks have announced a new processor !

Projected delivery date: ~ same time as IBM's new FAB opens !

Re:No, the wafers do move directly from tool to to

[Cougar1]

Also, although IBM is leading in automation implementation right now slmost all of the other 300mm fabs worldwide are putting in similar systems.

Tool to tool transfer is pretty much a necessity for 300mm wafers. Remember the things are about the size of dinner plates. Having clumsy humans carting around crates of 25, when each is worth tens of thousands of dollars is just asking for trouble. I've loaded cassettes of 200mm wafers into diffusion furnaces and that is awkward enough, I can't imagine trying to do the same with 300mm wafers.

Glamor Job: Move to East Fishkill, Work in Fab 323

[Dr. Spork]

I know Pataki and the gang are trying to make the Hudson valley sound sexier than Silicon Valley, but before they succeed, they really do need to get some better names. I mean, which address would you rather have, Mountain View or ... East Fishkill? Could you really say the following with a straight face: "East Fishkill is actually a very glamorous place!"? "East Fishkill is a place where talented young people can really have a great time!"

802.11

[klwood]

Would that be "b" or "a". Forheavens sake, if someone picked up the cordless phone in the office, it could get ugly.

Re:No, the wafers do move directly from tool to to

[Zathrus]

Very cool... thanks for the update. I was at TI 6 years ago, and they were one of the first fabs with any automated cassette delivery. It was also one of the few 300 mm fabs worldwide.

Of course, the other fab I worked in was .35 micron and 200 mm. The differences in clean room practices between the two were so severe as to be laughable.

In a similar vein, the first RISC

[dpilot]

was called "The 801 Minicomputer" named after building 801 at Watson Research, where George Radin & co (Don't mean to neglect any names here, sorry.) designed and built it.

PowerPC not selling well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in the personal computer market, but PowerPC is more than a chip inside of Macs. It's in some serious amount of servers, and I'm pretty sure it's one of the hottest, if not the hottest RISC chips out there.

Re:PowerPC not selling well?

[geekee]

If you total up all the PowerPCs in IBM and other servers, Im sure it's far less than the number in Macs. As far as embedded aplications I have no idea what it would be used in. I have nothing against the PowerPC incidently. It's a well designed chip. Unfortunately, x86 had already become too prevalent in the market, and compatibility is everything in that market.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

That information isn't entirely correct. While I can't give specifics, being a former Intel employee. Most all of the mentioned technologies in this article have been used in our main development facility for over a year, while developing Northwood core Pentium 4 chips.

Process control boxen

[nojayuk]

AFAIK there are no industrial I/O subsystems that can be easily hooked up to a Mac, but plenty for the PC. Integrators have been building rack-mounted PCs and IP-65+ x86 boxes for industrial control of conveyors and other manufacturing systems for decades, and there's a large software base out there too with specialist tools for sequencing, failure recovery etc. Macintoshes are cute and pretty, but that doesn't cut it in a refrigerated food distribution plant or an iron foundry (a couple of places I've installed PC control/monitoring systems in the recent past).

The boxes themselves don't really care what they run -- for the iron foundry's soak-pit monitor (measuring and controlling the cooling of 100-tonne castings from 1000 deg C down to room temp over a period of up to four weeks) I ran DOS 5.0 because it didn't need anything smarter. For IBM's shop-floor control they needed something more complex with networking capability, but I think you'd find that the Linux image plus apps each individual box ran would probably be tiny. No use including the GUI kitchen sink if the box is only going to be doing a couple of simple jobs. Going with Windows in that kind of application doesn't make a lot of sense to start with, but thaat's not what it was designed for.

Next Generation Fib Chaps

[Anonymous Coward]

mine were getting worn out

Re:No, the wafers do move directly from tool to to

[Anonymous Coward]

Having clumsy humans carting around crates of 25, when each is worth tens of thousands of dollars is just asking for trouble. I've loaded cassettes of 200mm wafers into diffusion furnaces and that is awkward enough

Good thing none of those "clumsy humans" have any coordination. And those lots of wafers weigh a total of, what, about 5 lbs (~2.25 kg)?
Wow! You actually find loading 200mm wafers to be "awkward"?!?

What realtime extension system?

[mmol_6453]

"Amazing" advances in the uses of Linux happen fairly often. What's interesting about this advance is it requires the application of realtime processing, which Linux doesn't natively support.

So, my question is, what realtime extension system are they using? I know there's RTLinux, but are there any other options?

Interpretation of "System failure"

[mmol_6453]

The "System" that failed may refer to the overall system, not necessarily the stability of the OS. Several things that could cause this:

• Buggy control software

Quite often, the same software compiled for Linux, and then compiled for Windows, won't work the same way. Unless you use something like MinGW or Cygwin, you run the risk of the w32(Read, MSVC++) compiler not interpereting certain functions (especially preprocessor and low-level compiler functions) the same way as they would be under Linux with GNU tools.

• [Buggy] [system] library used by the control software

Microsoft's C/C++ libraries often take different arguments, or even return different results (like a different return value code system) than GNU libraries for Linux.

Either of the two above options would require IBM to spend a good deal of time rewriting portions of their software, which, after assessing the market condition, they may have decided wasn't worth it.

• Hardware drivers

Vendor-provided drivers rarely have the "many-eyes" debugging system that OSS software has. This becomes especially evident with hardware drivers, which thousands of computer-literate (in the case of Linux users) people use. Score one for OSS!

• Realtime dependance

While there are patches to make Linux certifiably a Real Time OS, Microsoft Windows has no such patches. Even NT can freeze, should a userland software loop get out of control. (Trust me, I had it happen yesterday here at work.)

• Software licensing issues

Yes, even licenses can cause unexpected downtime. For example, lets presume IBM's automation system accounted for glitches such as those that might require ghosting (restoring a binary image to a hard drive). If they had tried, say, XP Server, as their controlling OS, XP would have to contact Microsoft for license verification, before continuing to run. Suddenly, Internet congestion, and glitches in Microsoft's system, all become factors. The master control system mail decide that subordinate X has been down too long for it to be an automatically fixable problem, and then have to take the entire system down for symmetry and stability.

God, I sound like Richard Stallman. How the hell did that happen?

I bet it doesn't have a lot of RAM, either

[BattyMan]

I know mine doesn't. And yes, the package list is certainly growing. Be sure you have a couple hundred MB of swap space. On a 486, the RAM is a bigger issue than the CPU. The CPU will eventually chug through it, but if you run out of RAM (& swap combined) you're gonna segfault.

I'm trying to install Debian on a 486 right next to me, and dselect's been loading the package database for an hour. (I intend to use the machine as a NAT gateway.)

Wait 'til you build the selection list! dselect is the heaviest load that puppy will ever see. I assume you'll stay away from X.... NS6/Moz will overwhelm such a machine, as will Java. NS4, with Java OFF, will actually work but require much patience. You wouldn't want to browse with yer gateway, anyway.

"Better" on older hardware came from someone's imagination. Linux runs 'perfectly well' on older hardware, and would certainly be well-fed on a 1G machine. A 486 _will_ appear lackluster by comparison, but still great for NAT & plenty left for ipchains, too.

Wow, can you imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Beowolf cluster of these things?

Re:No, the wafers do move directly from tool to to

[Cougar1]

Wow! You actually find loading 200mm wafers to be "awkward"?!?

If you're talking about the SVG Thermco furnace, yes it is quite awkward. The problem is that you're wearing several layers of gloves and trying to load the thing at an awkward angle. TEL furnaces really weren't so bad.

Anyhow, I'm not saying humans can't do it with 300mm wafers, but at that size the odds of someone "plonking" down a cassette becomes quite large. While this usually won't break the wafers, it can sure stirr up lot's of yield destroying particles. At this point the benefits of automated wafer movement greatly outweigh the costs.

Goodness Buildness, Great Falls of Fire

[fm6]

The reboots are due more to external factors than the box needing it. Reliability is not an issue in the Windows based systems that I build.

Well, it sounds like you build solid NT systems. I never doubted that it was possible. But.

I often hear NT people claim that their boxes can be made as reliable and as secure as a box using any other platform, provided you do everything the right way. I actually believe this. The problem is, there's so much more that you have to do right. Every complexity, every hidden feature is an open invitation to Captain Murphy.

Saying that a complex computer system is a reliable as a simple computer system, provided you take all the right steps -- that's like saying raw Nitroglycerine is just as safe as Plastique, provided you don't drop it.