cu4hdd backplane channel analysis -...

16
IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 1 CU4HDD Backplane Channel Analysis Presenter: Peter Wu, Marvell

Upload: voque

Post on 18-Mar-2018

229 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 1

CU4HDD Backplane Channel Analysis

Presenter: Peter Wu, Marvell

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 2

Outline

• Analysis of 54 SAS backplane channels (www.t10.org)

• Channels are from connector to connector (TP1 <-> TP4)

• IL - Insertion loss

• ICR ( Insertion loss to crosstalk ratio )

• Simulation results using COM model ( Annex 93A 802.3bj with

updated configurations)

• Simulation results with Stateye V4.2.3

• Performance analysis for PCS coding and equalizations

• PCS coding: 8B/10B vs. 64B/66B encoding

• TX EQ– 3 tap TX FIR

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 3

COM – Channel Operating Margin ( Annex 93A) – Simulation Configurations

• 2.5G-BASE-X – 8B/10B

• Baud rate: 3.125G.

• TX EQ: No

• DFE: No

• 5G BASE-X –8B/10B

• Baud rate: 6.25G

• With/Without: TX EQ of 3-Tap FIR

• DFE: 6-Tap

• 5G BASE-R –64B/66B

• Baud rate: 5.15625G

• With/Without: TX EQ of 3-Tap FIR

• DFE: 6-Tap

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 4

0 1 2 3 4 5

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

X: 1.56

Y: -8.52

Insertion Loss

Frequency (GHz)

IL (

dB

)

X: 2.58

Y: -14.87 X: 3.13

Y: -17.24

X: 2.81

Y: -19.25

Channel Analysis of Insertion loss

• HP24, HP25, HP26 are with worst Insertion loss

• Large insertion loss deviation @ ~2.8GHz.

Worst IL for 5G with

64B/66B Encoding

Worst IL for 5G with

8B/10B Encoding

IL @ Nyquist for 5G

with 8B/10B Encoding

Scheme 2.5G

8B/10B

5G

64B/66B

5G

8B/10B

Worst IL

(dB)

8.52 14.87 19.25 Worst IL for 2.5G with

8B/10B Encoding

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 5

1 2 3 4 5 6

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

X: 2.8

Y: 15.68

Insertion to Crosstalk Ratio

Frequency (GHz)

dB

X: 2.58

Y: 20.41

X: 1.56

Y: 29.27

Channel Analysis of ICR

• Some channels have ICR dip @ ~2.8GHz

Worst ICR for 5G with

64B/66B Encoding

Worst ICR for 5G with

8B/10B Encoding

Worst ICR for 2.5G

with 8B/10B Encoding

Scheme 2.5G

8B/10B

5G

64B/66B

5G

8B/10B

Worst IL

(dB)

29.27 20.41 15.68

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 6

Simulation Results with COM - 2.5GBASE-X

• 2.5Gbps with 8B/10B encoding

• 3dB COM reserved for loss from implementations

• All channels pass without DFE or TX EQ

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

CO

M (

dB

)

Channel ID

2.5G 8B/10B

No DFE

6-Tap DFE

3dB COM Limit

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 7

Simulation Results with COM -5GBASE-R

• 5Gbps with 64B/66B encoding

• All channels pass without TX EQ

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

CO

M (

dB

)

Channel ID

5G 64B/66B

3 Tap TX FFE

NO TX FFE

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 8

Simulation Results with COM -5GBASE-X

• 5Gbps with 8B/10B encoding

• 20% of channels fail even with TX EQ

• Non-optimal DFE shape due to 8B/10B idle patterns may result in

further performance loss ( Lo_802.3CU4HDD_01_0915)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

CO

M (

dB

)

Channel ID

5G 8B/10B

3 Tap TX FFE

NO TX FFE

3tap TX EQ

No TX EQ

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 9

Performance Analysis with COM – IL dip

• HP25 has IL dip @ around 2.8GHz and ICR dip @ around 2.8GHz

• Out of band for 64B/66B scheme (Nyquist at 2.578125GHz)

• In band for 8B/10B scheme (Nyquist at 3.125GHz)

1 2 3 4 5 6-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

X: 2.58

Y: -11.71

Insertion Loss

Frequency (GHz)

IL (

dB

)

X: 2.83

Y: -19.18

HP25

1 2 3 4 5 6

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

X: 2.81

Y: 17.24

Insertion Crosstalk Ratio

Frequency (GHz)IC

R (

dB

)

X: 2.58

Y: 23.58

HP25

Worst IL with

64B/66B Encoding

Worst IL with

8B/10B Encoding

Worst ICR with

64B/66B Encoding

Worst ICR with

8B/10B Encoding

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 10

Simulation Results Using Stateye v4.2.3

• For additional margin - target BER 10-15

• No TX EQ added

• 6-Tap DFE

• Jitter model added

• Results of eye opening for all 54 channels

• Minimum Required Eye Opening 0.2V

• Observations: • 5GBASE-X Mode(8B/10B), 10 channels fail the required eye opening.

• 5GBASE-R Mode(64/66B) and 2.5GBASE-X(8B/10B) all channels pass

• The results align with that of COM analysis

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 11

Simulation Results Using Stateye – 5G mode

Channels fail

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 12

Simulation Results Using Stateye – 2.5G mode

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 13

Conclusions

• 2.5Gbps

• ICR are good for all channels.

• All channels pass without TX EQ or DFE.

• 8B/10B is feasible

• 5Gbps

• All channels pass with 64B/66B encoding and no TX EQ

required

• Some channels fail with 8B/10B encoding

• 64B/66B is a better choice than 8B/10B for both performance

and implementation considerations

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 14

BACKUP SLIDES

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 15

List of Channels : 54 channels

15

channel ID channel XTALK

1 'HP01' 'HP19'

2 'HP01' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

3 'HP02' 'HP19'

4 'HP02' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

5 'HP03' 'HP19'

6 'HP03' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

7 'HP04' 'HP19'

8 'HP04' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

9 'HP05' 'HP19'

10 'HP05' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

11 'HP06' 'HP19'

12 'HP06' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

13 'HP07' 'HP19'

14 'HP07' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

15 'HP08' 'HP19'

16 'HP08' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

17 'HP09' 'HP19'

18 'HP09' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

19 'HP10' 'HP19'

20 'HP10' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

21 'HP11' 'HP19'

IEEE 802.3 CU4HDDSG – Nov 2015 Plenary Meeting, Dallas, TX 16

List of Channels

22 'HP11' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

23 'HP24' 'HP19'

24 'HP24' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

25 'HP25' 'HP19'

26 'HP25' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

27 'HP26' 'HP19'

28 'HP26' 'HP15+HP16+2HP17+2HP18'

29 'long_board_to_drive_oldconn' 'long_board_to_drive_oldconn_next'

30 'short_board_to_drive_oldconn' 'short_board_to_drive_oldconn_next'

31 'long_board_to_board' 'long_board_to_board_FEXT'

32 'short_board_to_board' 'short_board_to_board_FEXT'

33 'b1_thu' 'b1_next'

34 'b2_thu' 'b2_next'

35 'c1_thu' 'c1_next'

36 'c2_thu' 'c2_next'

37 'd1_thu' 'd1_next'

38 'd1_thu' 'd1_lcc'

39 'd2_thu' 'd2_next_hdd'

40 'd2_thu' 'd2_next_lcc'

41 'a2_thu' 'a2_next'

42 'a2_thu' 'a2_lcc'

43 'Intel_HDD_BP_C_MB_03_thru' 'Intel_HDD_BP_C_MB_03_FEXT'

44 'Intel_HDD_BP_C_MB_04_thru' 'Intel_HDD_BP_C_MB_04_FEXT'

45 'Intel_HDD_SC_MB_11' 'Intel_HDD_SC_MB_11_FEXT'

46 'Intel_HDD_SC_MB_12' 'Intel_HDD_SC_MB_12_FEXT'

47 'Intel_MB_C_BP_HDD_01_thru' 'Intel_MB_C_BP_HDD_01_FEXT'

48 'Intel_MB_C_BP_HDD_02_thru' 'Intel_MB_C_BP_HDD_02_FEXT'

49 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_05' 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_05_FEXT'

50 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_06' 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_06_FEXT'

51 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_07' 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_07_FEXT'

52 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_08' 'Intel_MB_LC_HDD_08_FEXT'

53 'Intel_MB_SC_HDD_09' 'Intel_MB_SC_HDD_09_FEXT'

54 'Intel_MB_SC_HDD_10' 'Intel_MB_SC_HDD_10_FEXT'