AHA2790UW has speed-limit problems ?

Matthew Jacob mjacob at feral.com
Fri Aug 14 15:30:06 PDT 1998


It's exactly this kind of discussion that has encouraged me to think
that Fibre Channel is a better technology when you're getting to these
speeds. The cost differential between this and parallel SCSI is getting
to be pretty small.

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:

> >> Shorten the cables.  Ensure that the distance between all connectors on
> >> the cable are equal.  Use a forced perfect terminator.
> >
> >Shortening the cables might help, but what is the principle behind equalizing
> >the inter-tap distance? 
> 
> Assuming that the drives on the chain offer similar capacitive loads, you
> want the cable distance to be equal between ports to maintain a constant
> impedance throughout the length of the bus.
> 
> >(2) segments less than 0.3m (stub clustering lumps loads
> >    and aggregates the impedance mismatch); 
> 
> ...
> 
> >I suspect that people think equalizing segment lengths helps because it forces
> >them to use the recommended minimum stub (load) spacing. But what makes this
> >win is the elimination of stub clusters, not the equalization of segment runs.
> 
> This is a common misconception.  The requirement, although dictated as an
> explicit number by the SCSI spec, is really trying to say, the ratio of
> stub length to stub spacing should be at least 1:3.  I have a fairly
> in-depth testing report provided by Adaptec to OEMs using their parts on
> MBs, where they show with signal analysis that keeping the ratio is what
> matters. Considering that the stub length of most drives is ~1" of PCB
> trace, the inter-stub spacing can be as low as ~.1m.
> 
> >  --Ross Harvey
> 
> --
> Justin
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message



More information about the aic7xxx mailing list