Latest Fibre Channel Tape Connector Proposal
stewart_wyatt at am.exch.hp.com
Mon May 17 12:38:24 PDT 1999
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* "WYATT,STEWART (HP-Boise,ex1)" <stewart_wyatt at am.exch.hp.com>
The instructions I had from Dal (at least as I understood them) were to keep
the FIbre Channel signals in the same order. These signals are in order
+PORT 1_IN, -PORT 1_IN, +PORT 2_IN, -PORT 2_IN, +PORT 1_OUT, -PORT 1_OUT,
+PORT 2_OUT, and -PORT 2_OUT. I am opposed to this order and would prefer to
group the PORT 1 in and outs together and the PORT 2 in and outs together.
However I was unable to get any support for that change in the FC_TAPE
meeting. The other changes were to try to use the long pins for grounds and
charge and shield the port signals with quieter signals.
What would you propose as an alternative?
From: Alvin_Cox at notes.seagate.com [mailto:Alvin_Cox at notes.seagate.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 1:12 PM
To: WYATT,STEWART (HP-Boise,ex1)
Cc: 'SFF Reflector'; 'SCSI Reflector'; 'Fibre Channel Reflector'
Subject: Re: Latest Fibre Channel Tape Connector Proposal
It was my understanding that the FCAL 40-pin assignments would remain in
their relative locations as defined per SFF-8045. This proposal changes the
relative locations of the FCAL pin assignments.
I have also looked at the 80-pin SCSI version to see what would happen if a
SCSI device was connected to a backplane or cable per this proposal. I
found that 12 volts (44) would be shorted to +5 volts (74) by the MATED 1
and MATED 2 signals and that +5 volts (71, 72, 73) will either be applied
to the differential drivers of a differential SCSI drive or shorted to
GROUND on a SCSI single-ended device. Based on these observations, I do not
find this proposal acceptable.
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
More information about the T10