Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

FireWire Goes Long Distance, Experimentally 96

Posted by timothy from the looking-for-a-usb-to-ethernet-to-1394-adaptor dept.
P-Rod writes: "PC World.com News has an article detailing how Japanese researchers have created a low-cost way to send information through FireWire cables 100 meters at 400 Mbps. The current form of the Apple-created high-speed peripheral interface (known as the IEEE 1394 industry standard and dubbed i.Link by Sony) is limited to distances of 4.5 meters at that speed, its present top speed, unless a repeater device is used. This could bring new options to computer networking, especially considering FireWire's superb ease of use over Ethernet. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FireWire Goes Long Distance, Experimentally More

FireWire Goes Long Distance, Experimentally

Comments Filter:
  • Whats the advantage, besides speed, of using Firewire over Ethernet?
  • But in the really real world, I have tried Fireware in my iMac DV... it is a very cool technology... I would LOVE to see a long distance version... perhaps a whole in house Firewire network... sweet. -Affegott 2 hundred and foty dollars, worth of puddin. awwww yeahh
  • The current form of the Apple-created high-speed peripheral interface (known as the IEEE 1394 industry standard and dubbed i.Link by Sony) is limited to distances of 4.5 meters at that speed, its present top speed, unless a repeater device is used. Oh fucking wonderful. Would some Japanese researchers care to tell me what I'm meant to do with the container-load of repeaters I just bought? I was gonna raise $6bn to cover the entire United states with a network of repeaters, placed in a grid of 4.5 meter squares. (Hey, they funded Iridium).
  • Does anyone know of a good site for info on maximum lengths of SCSI, ethernet, Fibre Channel? I am personally interested in the effective length of TOSlink. I want to use one of my 'puters as a input on Living Room stereo using optical fibre. I don't want to go through all the trouble of setting up an Xterm and cabling if the fibre won't extend all the way to the other room.

    Sorry if this is a little (or a lot) off topic. Moderate this as you wish.


    _damnit_
  • How is firewire any easier to use than Ethernet? You plug the wire into the computer, and it works, doesn't it? Since most (all?) Macs have ethernet built in, and most PCs dont' have Firewire, it doesn't seem like it is that much difference. I assume that you have to enter your TCP/IP settings either way (or use DHCP).

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:4)

    by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Sunday April 02, 2000 @11:37PM (#1155259)
    Firewire has a tendancy to be less reliable underwater due to the need for high temperatures and oxygen to maintain transmission quality. Another drawback is production of greenhouse gasses during production. It is also only good for a few uses. More than that, and there is a good chance your signal will get corrupted with 2's and 3's instead of the usual 1's and 0's. I'm sorry for this post.

  • Wow... (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    How different is USB and Firewire in design from SCSI? On the face of it, they sound like very similar technologies, except that USB is built-in with less hassle. But I haven't checked it out in any detail, as is usually the case with me and most hardware I don't own (either one, as it happens).

    Also, I was wondering about those USB keyboards: do I really need to be typing that fast? Do you think Word can keep up, or would the paperclip get dizzy? ;)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].

  • Wireless Firewire (Score:4)

    by Sulka ( 4250 ) <sulka@@@iki...fi> on Sunday April 02, 2000 @11:43PM (#1155261) Homepage Journal
    I found the news of wireless firewire [architosh.com] a lot more interesting.

    FW is really nice technology if everything falls in line - several meters at 200Mbps wireless, 400Mbps in long range cables and 800Mbps in "short" cabling. Cool.. :)

    sulka
  • Hmm.. Long distance, high bandwidth.. Sounds like fiberchannel, hopefully they'll be able to do it cheaper then fiberchannel runs right now...

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:3)

    by friedo ( 112163 ) on Sunday April 02, 2000 @11:54PM (#1155263) Homepage
    Well, Firewire in it's current state would not be good for making large networks, as you can only have 63 devices on a single bus (but a firewire switch wouldn't be that hard to invent, I suppose.) Besides that, it's easier, because node addresses and such are handled by the protocol, so no messing with IP addresses and subnets. It also has QoS features, meaning it can deliver broadcast quality video in real-time while saving less important stuff for later.
  • Besides that, it's easier, because node addresses and such are handled by the protocol, so no messing with IP addresses and subnets.

    So at the application level, you address a given machine how?

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:4)

    by datajack ( 17285 ) on Monday April 03, 2000 @12:03AM (#1155265)
    Err...
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I found that 'firewire == better ethernet' satement to be a tad misleading. Ethernet is a system designed for sharing resources and information between a number of computers. Firewire is designed primarily for connecting peripherals to said computers. Also Ethernet now goes upto a gigabit, so it isn't slower.
    I would bet that, if you tried to use Firewire instead of ethernet, you would stumble across a lot more problems.
    If you wanna get shot of collisions, use token ring or FDDI.
  • Using firewire for networking would most likely involve tcp/IP over Firewire, so you woudl still have to set up IP addresses. Much like Ethernet MAC addresses are used for routing, I would imagine that firewire node addresses would be.

    -----

  • Ok, time for the big questions which generate a lot of +3 Informative replyes in the thread.

    What firewire sollutions exists for x86 PC's and are there Linux, *BSD, BeOS drivers for them ?

    How much more they cost comparing to Ethernet and USB ?

    Can you home-build cables for them you have to buy the wires too ?

    Does ALL of the devices (FireWire, IEEE 1394 "compatible", iLink, FooWire ...) fit togheter or there are some liiitle protocol incompatibilities/extensions between them ?
  • You can hot-plug FireWire, you can hook 64 devices together without a hub, the 4-pin cables (no power) can be made very thin and have really small connectors, all of the connectors are more durable (no little tab to break off), and the 6-pin cable provides power.

    The no-hub thing is actually the biggest advantage. If you want to hook up an all-digital home theater system, you can't seriously ask a consumer to get a hub every time them add one too many devices. FireWire just lets you plug the next device into the last.
  • I don't really see how this would be any better for home networking than Ethernet. Your still going to have to setup the interface somehow, right? If your want to use a cablemodem to connect to the Internet your still going to have to use ethernet somewhere (well for the time being since AFAIK all cablemodems use an ethernet connection). I think that fast (and later gigabit) ethernet will satisfy the needs of home networks (and most corporate ones) for the foreseeable future.

    The big potentional I see for firewire is networking regular consumer electronics with computers. Having sort of plug'n'play networking for things like your TV, VCR, DVD player, stereo etc... so that you could control them from your PC and move data between them easily, then that would be cool. Like caputing your home movies and vaction pictures onto your house server then being able to pull them off from any TV in the house, or being able to play MP3's from any stereo in the house all off of a central server, or taping Quake matches to your VCR (or hell just setting it for spectators to watch them live ;-> ) Well you get the idea it'd be cool, though I imagine the MPAA and the RIAA might want to start sueing people or charging royalties for these devices since they are of course opposed to any nifty technologies that make both general consumers and us geeks go "hey cool" ;->

    Just my rambeling late night thoughts on what I'd like to be able to do with this kinda technology.
  • Sounds like the list of advantages (in some rare situations -- in most of cases they are disadvantages) of thin coax ethernet over twisted pair ethernet. Except, of course, hot-plugging that is exactly the same in all kinds of ethernet and 64 devices limitation that ethernet doesn't have.

  • More tech info (Score:5)

    by lostboy ( 79669 ) on Monday April 03, 2000 @12:35AM (#1155272)
    Since the original article was sketchy of details, here's [eiaj.or.jp] a link to the Japanese group that actually did it.

    I know jack about cabling and plastics, but it says that they're using poly-methyl methacrylate wideband plastic optical fiber that's either Graded-Index (100m) or Multi-Layer (50m).
    This also piqued my interest: "Perfluorinated POF has been successfully used in trials of 10 Gbps transmission. However, this POF is considered appropriate for office applications because it is only one-fifth the thickness of poly-methyl methacrylate POF. Expectations in the industry have grown for the potential of the easier-to-use poly-methyl methacrylate POF for digital home networks."

    Could some engineering type explain all of this?

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I fail to see the point, we've had 1gbps Ethernet over fibre for sometime now, and it runs a lot further than 100meters just like its predecessor fibre channel (100mbps).

    They're even drafting a standard which would allow 1gbps over cat5/6, at a distance of, you've guessed it, 100meters!

    Firewire seemed like a good technology, but I think it's missed its mark, 400mbps was pretty swift when everyone was touting it in 96/97. It was meant to revolutionise networking, the way we connect HardDisk and external peripherals. Except none of this happend and other technologies have surpassed it, even the ATA66 interface runs faster than Firewire now (400mbps/8 = 50megabytes/sec), U2W SCSI passed it ages ago. And ethernet has surpassed it at 1gps, even USB2 is catch up with it! If you've got overtaken by USB, you've got serious problems.

    It only seems popular in a limited capacity, i.e. connecting digital video cameras up.

    It looks like not many people wanted to pay Apple $1 per port to use the standard.
  • Yeah - problem I can see is that it would suffer form the same problems as coax ethernet - i.e. a break in a cable would take the network down (or in the best scenario, split the network in two)


    Star formation netrowkr are IMHO superior due to this problem so maybe we'd need hubs for networking purposes.


    As has been stated before though, there's Gigabit ethernet but it's expensive. WOuld a firewire solution be cheaper in the long run?


    Also, what about the idea of having intelligent firewire devices that would act as standard peripherals when connected to a single computer but could be used as networked storage if connected to a firewire network?

    Troc

  • You seem to have spotted another benefit - All firewire is the same.

    After all, who want to have to decide whether to use thin coax ethernet, twisted pair, thick ethernet, 10mbps, 100mbps, 1gbps ethernet etc. For their home cinema system.

    And lets be honest, for the application it designed for, 64 devices is not xactly a limitation.


  • There is a group developing IEEE1394 compliance for Linux.

    Their (old) website is located at http://eclipt.uni-klu.ac.at/ieee1394/, with their new website at linux1394.sourceforge.net

    Hope this helps.

  • Dunno about SCSI. Fibre I believe has up to a kilometer or two maximum distance, surely more than you'll need.

    As far as ethernet, depends what kind. 10/100baseT goes about 87m, 10base2 goes up to a bit less than 200 meters, and 10base5 goes up to a bit less than 500 meters. Of course, I've never seen a working 10base5 installation, just remnants of cable left over from olden days gone by.

    Dunno nothin' about TOSlink though. If it's fibre, it should be able to go quite a ways, I'd imagine.

  • Re:Wow... (Score:5)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Monday April 03, 2000 @01:39AM (#1155278) Homepage
    How different is USB and Firewire in design from SCSI?

    Good question. Basically, USB [usb.org] is a lot more versatile than SCSI, though there would be some debate over this, I'm sure.

    With USB, there is no hardware configuration to be done - you can plug the devices into each other in any order, into the computer or a hub, and you can chain hubs. It's very simple for a user to connect things with USB. SCSI, on the other hand, requires you to set a device ID for each device (usually 0 to 7, I think) and each device in the chain has a priority associated with it, and that is fixed.

    The real power of USB is how nice it is from a software driver point of view. If the host OS supports USB (and this would be the difficult part) then writing a device driver is easy. You get a clean software interface, and your driver isn't even loaded until the USB host driver has determined that your device has actually been connected and is receiving power. It's true plug and play (and hot pluggable). The host can even do power management, so even though you might not be able to run your printer and scanner at the same time, the host can power down the one that isn't in use, and allocate that power to the other device, all without you having to worry about it.

    Needless to say, the easier it is for the end user, the more difficult it is for us... :)

    Also, if you really want to see an amazing technology, check out BlueTooth [bluetooth.com]! Wires of any kind might soon be a thing of the past.

  • It's an IEEE standard. So's ethernet, come to think of it...

    As far as relevance goes, it's techie=stuff, and could impact people who use fireware (mac users, linux-ppc users, etc.). Plus it has to do with networking, and proposes to be a replacement for ethernet. Gee, I work with ethernet all day, it's my job...

    This is WAY more relevant to slashdot than something like, say, the movie review earlier today or some of the other things that have been posted.
  • Can't Bluetooth do all the without wires?
    _______________
  • Wow, 400mbps shared between 6 000 000 000 internet users.. that makes 2 400 000 000 000 mbps EACH.

    I hope I didn't get my *'s mixed up with my /'s like I usually do.

  • What? Huh? Are you all aliens? (Score:4)

    by NevDull ( 170554 ) on Monday April 03, 2000 @01:59AM (#1155282) Homepage Journal
    I understand a littany of off-topic posts, but WHAT ?

    Suitability of anything over anything else requires a context.

    "Staples found to be better than paper clips" - sure, maybe for holding paper together, but not for ejecting Mac floppies.

    Firewire is nice for peripherals, but why must people compare it to ethernet? It's made to connect several devices *locally* in a high-speed fashion.

    You're all mumbling crap about 63 devices blah blah blah and wondering about addressing schemes.

    Is there a limitation that people don't know about regarding Ethernet MAC addresses?

    Then, you talk about collisions.

    Huh? Properly Vlanned and subnetted switched networks should be in place to deal with collisions.

    Fibre Channel? First, it's 100 MBps, not 100mbps. Second, outside of external arrays on expensive-as-shit multiprocessor servers, when do you see it? You don't.

    How many of the people complaining about SCSI actually know if it's the bus which is holding them up? Fine... it's nicer to run fiber from one rack to another than to get those damned SCSI cables routed around.

    I think that most of the commenters are people who just get hard-ons when you mention fiber.

    Firewire, Fast Ethernet, Ethernet, SCSI, Fibre Channel, USB, USB-II... when does it stop? How many devices shall we end up with that can't talk to one another? How many upgrades shall we have simply because we need new interfaces on them?

    You know what we need? A cheaper solution. Why should SCSI cables cost so damned much? The adapters to plug your Fast SCSI-II drive into your U2W cable?

    Keyword for success and unification is commodity . Which of the abovementioned standards is commodity? Ethernet/Fast Ethernet. RJ45 connectors? Cat5? Commodity.

    Yeah, you're right though. Let's make it so there's no way in hell you can get what you need to get the new system on the network at 10 minutes after 8 in the evening. </rant>

    -NevDull
  • 400 Mbit/s Firewire as an ethernet replacement, well maybe, but then what about Gigabit ethernet (1000 Mbit/s) as a SCSI/Firewire alternative?

    Is that plausible?

  • FireWire vs. SCSI vs. Ethernet (Score:4)

    by tliet ( 167733 ) on Monday April 03, 2000 @02:14AM (#1155284)
    I've seen a lot of comments about how FireWire is supposed to replace SCSI or Ethernet or USB. FireWire was meant to replace SCSI, it's not a network like Ethernet. However, it has a couple of advantages over SCSI. True Plug and Play. On a Power Macintosh one can insert a harddisk into the FireWire chain and it'll show up on the desktop, vice versa works as well. Scalability. The original spec is 400 Mbps, the 1394b spec is 800 Mbps and more is on the way. Also, a slower device using 400 Mbps on a 800 Mbps chain will NOT slow the whole bus down, as is the case with USB and SCSI. Easy. FireWire is appearing in all digital camcorders now and will be appearing in a lot more devices. Imagine your DVD player digitally connected up to your amp and a digital TV. These days, one can buy a 1299 dollar iMac with a 799 dollar camcorder and make movies out of the box that are far better than anything out there 4 years ago at any pricelevel below 20,000 dollars. Intel is pushing USB like crazy, but remember that USB needs a host. That's why Intel likes USB so much (and dislikes FireWire) since the PC (with Intel Pentium processor of course) will always be the center of things with USB. With FireWire devices can control each other without the need of a single host controlling devices. Not good for Intel, good for the consumer. Ethernet has it's place in the world, just like USB (slow hub based bus for keyboards and mice). FireWire will find it's own sweetspot. The reason PC users haven't seen it a lot is that Intel is not playing nice here, refusing to implement 1394 in their chipsets. Citing a lack of market for it. I guess Apple needs to create that market for them, just like they did with USB.
  • Hasn't the IEEE standard been dropped? I thought
    that's just --Apple-- now. And haven't some ppl been taunting USB2.0 over Firewire for video stuff? (since that's really an open standard and so forth...)

  • Firewire supports isochronous data transfers, see this page [sederta.com] for more info. Unlike Ethernet, Firewire can offer guarantees on delay, throughput and jitter. Firewire is ideal for multimedia and real-time applications. Ethernet provides best effort delivery with no guarantees.

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Firewire is designed primarily for connecting peripherals to said computers" Close but not quite. That's USB. Firewire is designed to connect peripherals to computers or peripherals to peripherals. The computer is optional. You can use it to connect computers to computers, but as you said, there are better options. TCP/IP over ethernet falls down for peripherals because it doesn't autoconfigure. (this is a soluble problem). However, 1394 is way ahead on the issue of what you do with the peripheral once it's connected. USB falls down because it requires one computer, and only one computer. We're rapidly moving towards a living room where lots of devices have as much intelligence as the PC's of today. They aren't PC's, but they aren't peripherals either. Your TiVo, TV & playstation2 all need a master-capable port. Bryan
  • I think SCSI2 was 2 metres and that it was extended with the advent of SCSI3 but don't quote me on that. BTW, I've had no problem with cat5 10/100T going up to 100m. You need a pretty big living room if you have a distance problem with cat5 ethernet. And if you have a distance problem with fibre you'd be more despised than Bill Gates in this forum.
  • I was just thinking about the same thing jburroug said when I came accross this post. The thing running around my mind was a networked TV tuner(s)... no more buying tv cards for your computer or tvs with tuners in them - just get firewire interfaces for your pcs and monitors with firewire interfaces. Stereo systems could be done the same way, as could the remote control systems. And there would still be a lot of bandwidth if done correctly.
  • 400 Mbps / 6,000,000,000 internet users. Sounds like the UUNET backbone :)

    kwsNI
  • If your card is using a long wave laser (1300 nm)you can reach distances of 10 km without a repeater. This does not mean that the average optical FC card (850 nm) can do this, but versions many vendors cards with long wave lasers do exhist. You can also get 30 m using copper HSSDC, which is a bit cheaper.
  • Who needs disk anyway. Just buy more RAM. :)

    Use SCI (IEEE standard 1596-1992) - SCSI/TCP/IP over SCI. That'll do nicely thank you.

  • Firewire wasn't designed for networking computers, but I guess you could argue it was designed for networking peripherals. I can see the following reasons why someone would propose it over ethernet for home networking where distances and devices are limited:

    No hub is needed, making the network much easier to set up and more dynamic.
    Self-configuring/bus mastering
    High and guarrantied bandwidth for devices that are likely to take advantage of it (DV)
    Interfaces directly with consumer peripherals (with FireWire ports).
    Peripherals are equal 'citizens' to CPUs rather subservient to them

    I think this last point in particular is a key point about FireWire in general that people often miss: devices can talk to each other over FireWire without the presence of a computer, which is why it is so attractive to manufacturers of consumer electronics who can use it for their own purposes and not simply to hook the device to a computer.

  • Using longwave tranceivers (1300 nm) FibreChannel can use cable lengths of up to 10 km with 1 Gbps data rate, and you'll start seeing 2 Gbps products real soon. These are't experimental products either, you can buy them now. FibreChannel can aslo use fabric switches to make networks considerable larger than anyone in their right mind would want to make.

    The price can be a bit of a problem for a lot of applications right now, but if you need the bandwidth, expandability, and cable lengths, FibreChannel can provide them.
  • This may offer a great boon to firewire,

    but there have been primarily short sighted comments so far.

    Forget firewire for a second. What this article is realy saying is that this researcher has come up with a 400mbps over 100M link that was cheap!
    The technology that he used was described as cheap, and that means that it could be applied to other areas. If it was cheap enough to be come commodity like cat 5, a new breed of 400mbps networking standard could develop.

    Considering it's 4 times faster than 100mbps, and 40 times faster than the 10mbps that most of us are still running on, that new signalling/cabling standard may indeed have somewhere to go.
  • Yes, but from how I understand it, I believe they are reffering to the lack of having to actually SET UP a card. In other words, no IRQs or I/O addresses to set up.

    Then again, maybe not, i'm not sure to be honest :)
  • He's talking about a mac. You don't "set up" a card on a mac. You just put it in and reboot the damn thing. I'm not a mac person anymore, relly, but a lot of PC folks don't understand this fact.
    ---
  • C'mon, moderate this Nazi asshole down. How does this relate at ALL to the current discussion?
  • OK, I'm not going to give a full technical description here, but:

    USB, PS/2, Serial Port, ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) are designed for low speed peripherals such as keyboards, modems or printers. USB does or will rule the roost here.

    SCSI, IDE, Firewire are designed for higher speed devices such as hard disks. IDE is very limited (only really any good for internal hard disks), SCSI is (or was) superior to IDE in that it can support up to 7 periperals, longer cables and devices other than hard disks, but has cable termination and multiple version issues. Firewire is being touted as a replacement to SCSI, and will eventually be faster, but SCSI is still the choice for high perfomance if you can put up with its limitations.

    Ethernet is designed for connecting computers (and printers) to each other in networks.

    There is some overlap - in particular, Intel are pushing USB 2 as something to use instead of firewire. However, USB 2 is still vaporware, will be slower than Firewire, and has a lot of penalties stemming from its design as a relatively low speed protocol. USB 1 is also used for low speed storage like Zip disks.

    So the comparison between USB and SCSI doesn't make an awful lot of sense - they are really designed for different things (unless you are talking about something like a Zip disk, in whch case SCSI will be higher performance if available).

    Oh, and every computer I have ever bought has had SCSI built in and hasn't been any hassle, so what is buit in depends on what you buy ;-)

    As for your keyboard, I doubt that Word can keep up with a USB keyboard ... you'll just have to type slower :-)
  • I can't really see why anyone would want to run Firewire over distances of 100 meters. It certainly wouldn't be for saving money over Ethernet. I was at Best Buy yesterday to pick up a Cat 5 patch cable, and I saw a 6' Firewire cable for $75!
  • Ethernet can be just as easy to use as Firewire or any plug and play system. DHCP rocks for allocating IP's if you want to avoid setup hassles. DHCP can easily be set up to hand out an IP address to a specific hardware ethernet address. Firewire was not meant to replace ethernet as a networking system, its meant to be a perhiprial connection system (and a kick ass one at that). Any networking system still has to identify each system uniquely. I don't think many people are going to be connecting they're company webserver to the net via firewire anytime soon.
  • What? You mean that if I add another desktop it will show up on my hdd?

    No, no, no! What he means is if you create another harddisk icon on the desktop, it will sprout another *physical* harddrive on the FireWire chain!

    Of course, you must supply your own nanites.

  • Well, it seems the bad old days of the crappy ISA bus are finally over.

    I haven't seen any PCI network card requiring manual setup of IRQs or I/O adresses.

  • Firewire is only preferred by 19% of Slashdot readers.

    Statistics in the recent poll "My favorite paripheral connector" [slashdot.org] state that 19% of Slashdot geeks prefer firewire, while 35% use garden hose.

    I wonder if there are any recent tests on garden hose to see how its signal performs over long distance.

  • And lets be honest, for the application it designed for, 64 devices is not xactly a limitation.

    Yeah, multimedia and digital design? It's not like they used large amounts of hardware or anything... :)

  • Hasn't the IEEE standard been dropped?

    Although it annoys John C. Dvorak greatly, no.

    I thought that's just --Apple-- now.

    Never has been, never will be. See 1394 Trade Association [1394ta.org] for more information.

    And haven't some ppl been taunting USB2.0 over Firewire for video stuff?

    Those "ppl" would be Intel. Luckily, not too many people (other than JC Dvorak) listen to them these days.


    --

  • I don't get why this would be useful. As far as i can tell firewire has only be implemented for connecting peripherals to cpu's. Are you suggesting doing system to system networking with this technology? Interesting but then it just ends up being ethernet all over again all the same problems withOUT 20 years of making it work.
    I have had similar conversation about fiber channel. I have noticed a number of people not directly involved with networking think the problem is the current technologies. Well your correct, but the answer could not possibly be to replace them with something brand new. Most all new datalink technologies like fiber channel and firewire offer similar capabilities as Ethernet/fast e/gig e. But mostly lack deployed standards and all the features need to deploy to thousands of nodes.

    - Dustin -
  • No, but they still HAVE IRQs and I/O adresses which can conflict with other devcies...no?
  • Actually you don't have to reboot it.
  • That firewire runs power over its "firewire" cable while ilink does not. Firewire is like USB in this way, in that low power devices can get power from the host and not need to be plugged into an outlet.

    I think other than that the 2 are interchangable (I saw a 3rd party firewire card with the firewire and iLink logo..)

    http://www.firewireworld.com for more info

  • Supports computer-computer links (as opposed to USB)
    If it's built in and you have only one network card, why not?. With legacy systems the closest you get is a laplink cable :)
    I agree on that a beowulf cluster on computers with Firewire onboard would be a nice thing. The only sad thing is that it isn't built in very often.
  • But with the forthcoming USB 2.0, will all these rules still hold true? Can a USB 2.0 device get full throughput if plugged into a older USB device?

    matt
  • Uh, if memory serves, the 10Base2 is 185 meters with up to 30 NICs per segment, with a maximum of 5 segments connected with repeaters, but 2 of the segments can have no devices.

    Ah, didn't know about the segmenting details there. I just knew it was under 200m. I've never had to deal with more than 10 or so nodes on a segment, or more than about 15m with thin ethernet (all this was home lan cabling). All my professional experience has been with 10/100baseT.

    Of course, in the case of the user here, he's only wantin' to hook stuff up to his stereo, so the number or nodes shouldn't be a problem.

  • Actually, no. About the only way to create something like that is to give two SCSI devices the same ID number. You more or less have to be actively stupid to create these sorts of problems on a Mac.

    Dr. Jay

  • ``info on maximum lengths of SCSI''

    In brief, for single-ended SCSI:

    Type, MB/sec, Bus, Max. length
    SCSI-1, 5, narrow, 6m
    SCSI-2, 5, narrow, 6m
    SCSI-2 Fast, 10, narrow, 3m
    SCSI-2 F/W, 20, wide, 3m
    SCSI Ultra, 20, narrow, 3m
    SCSI U/W, 40, wide, 1.5m/3m (1)
    SCSI U2W, 80, wide, 12m (2)
    Ultra160, 160, wide, ??

    (1) > 4 devices / (2) > 2 devices

    (Sorry for the screwy formatting. Q:Does any website allow use of the damned <pre>/</pre> tags?)

    Also, the lengths can be greatly extended if you use Differential SCSI but I'm not sure how well supported these controllers are under Linux. (I'd be extremely interested to see the KZPSA/KZPBA/HSZ combination supported under Linux!)

    Ultra160 is already faster than Fiber Channel although there are some very nifty SAN products that connect via Fiber Channela and allow multiple hosts to share storage arrays (also applicability to Linux is unknown). I've not followed the Ultra160 products very closely but I doubt that they work very well outside the server cabinet (unless you go differential, that is). Whitepapers available on Adaptec's web site [adaptec.com] are predicting that Ultra320 will be available in 2001. IMHO, for mass storage, Firewire is already dead and getting deader. Maybe some sort of portable backup medium can connect to Firewire but I can't see anyone hanging significant disk space off of it.



    --
  • IFA '99 (International Funkkausstellung) I don't know what Funkkausstellung means, but I sure like saying it!

  • Re:Firewire vs Ethernet? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Gbyte ethernet is NOT cheap. Ethernet is NOT hot-swappable (unless you've already set up IPs, and gone through the networking pains in advance, etc). Ethernet does NOT supply power. Ethernet is NOT built into all major digital cameras. Ethernet is NOT designed to stream digital video nor audio. Ethernet is NOT designed to interface directly with hard drives. Ethernet canNOT hook two computers directly together using one cable without using a special cross-over cable.

    FireWire is desgined to do the things which ethernet is not. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'll go mine for more and come back.

    It looks like not many people wanted to pay Apple $1 per port to use the standard

    Well, now it's sealed, you are a TROLL. Everyone knows that FireWire/IEEE 1394/i.Link is licensed at $0.25 per a device with no limit on number of ports. The money is not to Apple but to a pool of companies who collectively own the various patents used in 1394. Twenty-five cents with unlimited ports is hella cheap for technology like this: 800 Mbps FireWire will be out by summer and 1.2 Gbps FireWire is slated for January 2001 (if not earlier).

    Here's some info: http://www.1394ta.com/ [1394ta.com]
  • ``...19% of Slashdot geeks prefer firewire, while 35% use garden hose.''

    My guess is that those 35% of Slashdot poll respondants were voting for `Garden Hose' because SCSI didn't appear on the list.

    USB? Firewire? Yah, right! More than bandwidth than I can possibly use for a keyboard and mouse and not enough to make any sense at all for mass storage. Besides, I have worked damned hard to cut down on the proliferation of cables snaking across my desktop. Now Apple and some other folks are telling me I have to put them back. Only if someone comes up with a USB or Firewire hub that installs in an exposed, unused disk bay so that I don't have to have another piece of hardware sitting on the desk.

    ``recent tests on garden hose to see how its signal performs over long distance''

    My performance tests, conducted last summer, indicated that performance was inversely proportional to the number of sprinkler heads you had attached to the bus but that the quality of the hose played some part in this (no hard data was collected on that aspect, though). Plus, adding devices to the bus required shutting down the network as the garden hose bus architecture closely resembles a Thinwire Ethernet. There are some garden hose hubs but they usually only come in two-port models and still require that you shut down an entire leg of the network in order to attach devices.



    --

  • I don't know what else you are looking for, but in general, glass has better transmission qualities than plastic. That is, at the wavelengths that diodes currently run best(IR and red) the signal can travel through more glass before being lost to diffusion and noise.

    The main disadvantages for glass are cost and flexibility. To some unknowing home user who is used to coiling cables around his finger, leaving loops in cable runs that are converted to kinks when someone pulls on them, yanking speaker wire around the sharp corners of furniture and so forth, glass would be bad. Even really thin and surprisingly flexible glass will break when you bend it too sharply. Plastic doesn't have this problem. There is still signal loss around curves, but that happens to both glass and plastic when the curves start getting sharp.

    If you are wondering about Graded Index or Multi-Layer, then we are talking about the Index of Refraction of the plastic or glass medium. Graded Index has a continuous variation in IoR from the center to the edge. The idea being that if the light starts to stray from the center of the fiber(as occurs when the fiber is bent), it will be bent(refracted) back toward the center. The Multi-Layer form does the same thing but with sharp, discrete boundaries between the layers with differing IoR. This causes a reflection rather than a gradual refraction. Typically the layers are set up to reduce the loss because with each reflection some of the light is not reflected. If you've ever heard of "multi-coated" optics on binoculars or telescopes, then we are toalking about the same thing. The idea is to minimize the loss due to reflection that happens whenever the light meets a boundary between media with different IoR. The Multi-Layer is trying to emulate the gradient. The difference as far as the light is concerned(whether a given setup appears to be a gradient or sharp boundary) depends on the wavelength, the delta of the IoR, the delta rate of the the IoR between multiple layers, and thickness of each layer. IOW, as you make more layers and the layers get thinner and the IoR delta between each gets smaller, multi-layer -> gradient. The gradient is ideal, but as usual harder(AKA more expensive) to build and build well. A typical gradient fiber will start out as a multi-layer that then gets "treated" with heat or whatever to cause the layers to melt or diffuse into each other. IF all goes well, the discrete layers turn into a smooth gradient. This kind of process works for both glass and plastic although much less effort is spent on making "good" plastic since generally "poor" glass beats it over distance anyway. For short length multi mode fiber, plastic can and does compete. For long hops, single mode glass is the only way to go.

    Now that fiber is making its way into the more hostile and cost sensitive environment of untrained home users with generally short hops, plastic's toughness and low cost will probably win over glass.
  • FireWireWorld.com [firewireworld.com] has a nice analysis of the PC World article here [firewireworld.com].

    Home FireWire/1394 Networking Takes Giant Leap Forward

    Friday, March 31st, 2000 [3:00 PM]

    PC World is reporting [pcworld.com] on a research project in Japan that has successfully transmitted 1394 data across 100 meters at 400 Mbps, the current limit to FireWire/1394 transmission speeds. This is significantly faster than was considered possible at those distances, and, more importantly, could lead to home networking. According to PC World:

    A Japanese government research project headed by the Electronic Industries Association of Japan has succeeded in sending IEEE 1394 signals--an emerging standard for digital home networks--over a long distance at high speed.

    The breakthrough confirms the system's suitability for use as a network around the home and opens up new possibilities for its use beyond the home, the EIAJ says in a statement.

    IEEE 1394 interfaces are increasingly being built into home electronics equipment like video cameras, televisions, and PCs, sometimes under the FireWire or iLink [sic] brand names. But most incorporate electrical interfaces that can send the 400-megabits-per-second IEEE 1394 data stream over 4.5 meters through metallic cables only. While this is adequate for connecting a series of devices located close to one another, it is not sufficient for running a network around a typical house.

    The Japanese trials, which were headed by Keio University's Yasuhiro Koike, succeeded in sending data at 400 mbps, which is fast enough for digital video, over a distance of 100 meters.

    You can find more information in the PC World article [pcworld.com], which we recommend.

    The FireWireWorld Analysis: This is fantastic news. Home wiring is an important part of the future of FireWire/1394. Home entertainment as well as centralized control of appliances could easily adopt the FireWire/394 standard. This would have huge implications for all areas of FireWire/1394 use as economies of scale would brings more advances more quickly, across the board.

    This is one of the most significant developments in FireWire/1394 so far this year.
  • Maybe Linus wants to use the iLink(1394) port on his Vaio Picturebook?

    --
  • Are you planning to run ssh ab:cd:04:02:04 -l username to log in? You completely missed the point. Check out the post that's below the one you replied to. Firewire fits into the OSI model as a datalink layer protocol, which means that it doesn't get routed. You use a network layer protocol on top of it, like IP, to make routing happen. Conveniently, IP also gives us a way to associate names with numbers. That's called DNS. It's much handier than having to know the hardware addresses, which are unique globally, but _not_ heirarchical, so a router would have to know where every host on the whole network was to be able to route.

    Probably an honest mistake on your part, and I hope you've figured it out now :)
    #define X(x,y) x##y
  • Choice is good, silly. The only time it's bad is if vendors make devices that only connect to one kind of network. Given the choice, I'd go with gig E :) (depending on price, though. It's good to let the consumer decide how much they want to pay for their stuff.)
    #define X(x,y) x##y
  • Firewire over 100 meters... agree with you.

    Hey! I was at Best Buy yesterday too (looking for Sony Camcorder M batteries) and almost dropped a load when I saw their 6' Firewire price. I think it was $79.99. Then I went to Circuit City and found the same one (Belkin) for $29.99! Bought it on the spot with the battery.

    --
    dman123 forever!

  • I was referring to PCI NIC cards on a PC :)
  • Or is the H key an example of western imperialism that you're rebelling against?
  • 1) Firewire was designed to replace SCSI - true
    2) SCSI isn't plug & play - somewhat false.

    SCSI for the most part doesn't 'hot swap' as nicely as Firewire, and SCSI for the most part doesn't have auto device IDs unless you consider SCAM - SCSI Configured AutoMatically - something I've seen even in ISA SCSI adaptors. So Firewire isn't that much of a quantum leam in those aspects, but hopefully the cables will be cheaper, they are more convenient.

    Unfortunately, the only 'Firewire' drive devices I've seen are those that use IDE drives internally rather than offing that aspect of its circuitry.

    On any Windows 9X / NT system with a SCSI adaptor installed, installing a new hard drive / zip / CDROM, it will automatically show up. With Macs, when you plug in a Zip, supposedly you do need to add the extension, which is goofy in my opinion.

    3) The next home video interconnect standard is called HAVi - Home Audio Video interconnect (or interlink or something like that), which uses the IEEE1394 standard, the same connection that your digital camcorder uses. Pioneer has demonstrated some nice looking prototypes, as shown in either Home Theater magazine or maybe Popular Science, I forget.

    If Intel's going to have it's chips in anything that will connect to a Digital TV (like the proposed X-box?), they are best off supporting IEE1394, but I suppose they'll just drag their feet until the X-box happens, but given its release time table, they would probably be significantly behind times as even the PS2 supposedly has IEEE1394 support _already_.
  • Ethernet _is_ the datalink layer. It isn't agnostic about itself! It _is_ agnostic about the everything above itself, which is of course the best way for things to be. Are you saying that Firewire isn't? It doesn't say "hey, that's IPX. We don't allow your kind here."

    The point the original poster made is very important. It is great for higher level multimedia protocols to be able to ask the lower level protocols to guarantee performace. Any higher level protocol can do this, including IP.

    For the price, ether is great for data. It is a good general purpose network, but it isn't so good for real time stuff. Don't forget that firewire comes built into some Macs now, as does 10/100 ethernet. Sounds cheap enough to me. My next computer will probably be a G4 tower to run Debian GNU/Linux on :)
    #define X(x,y) x##y
  • This is the kind of thing I'd really rather not see unless browsing at -2 or lower.
  • I wonder if Apple will start demanding that people pay by there meter for thier Fire Wire Tax
  • It's really kind of amusing watching people champion these various protocols as if they were their favorite sports teams. Amusing at first, then kind of nauseating.

    Next, Firewire is a bus protocol, Ethernet is a network protocol. Ethernet vs. Firewire is like saying Ferrari vs. Mac Truck. Even Firewire vs. USB is a rather silly, although I'm sure Intel sees it as a contest.

    The next thing I have a problem with is this urge to turn all interconnect busses into a home networking solution. 150 foot USB! 10 meter wireless IDE! Yippee!

    Then again, with Firewire, it does actually make sense. It would be so cool to have a house wired for Firewire. Then, I would need only one sat receiver or cable box downstairs in the den and simply hook up my bedroom (or outdoor or basement or kitchen) TV to the Firewire connection and we'd be in business. With the right accessories, you could control channels through Firewire too.

    Obviously, if two people wanted to watch different things at the same time, there'd be a problem. But the solution now is to rent another cable or sat box (big bucks), or carry the damn thing to the bedroom and hook it up there.

    Think also what it could do for home surveilliance. Put your little vidcams everywhere and hook them up to Firewire. Use the monitor to switch to different views. Heck, maybe even tell the cameras to deliver lots of little low-res views so the bandwidth doesn't saturate.

    And since Firewire is designed for this, it would be far superior to Ethernet even if there were a 400 Mbps version. Firewire delivers the Quality of Service needed. There might even be a market for Ethernet to Firewire bridges, so you could use the Firewire cable to network the house for computers, or to hook Firewire up to your old cable modem.

    It could be the beginning of a new (excuse me) paradigm. As a bus gets better at working long distances, maybe it will supplant the LAN in some settings. And Firewire is great because you don't need a computer in the middle of it. Making Firewire work over these long enough distances is the only thing that makes sense. Then someday there will be wireless...

  • "It seems like not many people wanted to pay Apple one dollar per port..."

    I'm pretty sure that that licensing situation has been altered for a while now. Of course, that probably won't stop USB-2 from coming preattached to motherboards, and I'm betting that the implementation will always use more CPU cycles than Firewire, because that's probably what Intel designed it for.

  • Imagine having your house firewired. You buy that new DVD player, and plug it into your living room TV.

    Two weeks later you want to watch a movie, in your bedroom.

    Instead of unplugging your DVD, you just tell it to put the picture upstairs. Your TV's infrared receiver now receives signals like your DVD player was in the room.

    This type of scenario is why firewire home networks would be a great addition to a home (once all devices have a firewire port on them.)
  • I thought that Apple designed and patented the *connectors* that are used in the Firewire specification, but only *participated* in the working group consisting of a number of companies (Sony, Phillips, Yamaha, etc) that actually invented the Firewire spec.

    In other words, its incorrect to say that Apple invented Firewire... but they did invent the *connectors*.

    Could someone with a better working knowledge of how the IEEE-1394 spec was presented clear this up? Or, point me in the direction of details about where this technology actually came from ...
  • The only working knowledge you need to clarify this is that which it takes to operate a web-browser. From the 1394 trade association's web site:

    "History of the IEEE 1394 Standard

    The 1394 digital link standard was conceived in 1986 by technologists at Apple Computer, who chose the trademark 'FireWire', in reference to its speeds of operation. The first specification for this link was completed in 1987. It was adopted in 1995 as the IEEE 1394 standard. "

    So much for your thoughts. BTW. The 4-wire connector was designed by Sony as an alternative to the 6-wire one.

  • FireWire is NOT A BUS PROTOCOL. FireWire is a SERIAL protocol. A bus transmits multiple bits at the same time, a serial connection transmits one bit at a time. FireWire sends one bit at a time, hence its speed measured in megabits per second. A FW-Ethernet converter would be stupid, Ethernet is only 100Mbps and interpreting the FW protocol and translating it to your favourite Ethernet protocol would take time which increases lag.
  • I think long distance FireWire would be cool but I'm bothered by the people wanting to use it to watch television or DVDs. Want to know a simple way to watch TV from the DVD downstairs? Run a coax from the DVD to your TV. Get a radio remote to control it. Sheesh. I think this would be great for device networking in data centers. You could get SCSI speeds over really long distances, need more speed? Just add more FW ports. I really think that FW has the potential to replace IEEE 802.x in many environments, especially as the protocol stands now. It would be much simpler to treat any networked device as a remote device on the network. The autonegotiation would go over really well for the non-networking engineers setting up a LAN in their house. Besides the auto-setup all the routing and such is done in the hardware so the software and CPU are totally free to do other things, this is a good thing when executing a large/complex remote file.
  • Gbyte ethernet is NOT cheap. Ethernet is NOT hot-swappable (unless you've already set up IPs, and gone through the networking pains in advance, etc).

    Ethernet is most certanly hot-swappable, I've done it dozens of times. I guess you just don't know jack. Yeh, you'll need to set up IPs, but you can use DHCP to do that automaticaly if you want. I don't see how fire wire will make it so you don't need to set up IP networks. Both of them are phisical transport layers and don't really have any thing to do with TCP/IP.

    Ethernet canNOT hook two computers directly together using one cable without using a special cross-over cable.

    Yes, but you can do it, you can use base-T cables, or you can flip the the cat5 cable. And with gigabyte eth cards you don't even need to do that (the cards can detect automaticaly if they are connected to a hub or another card). Don't tell me I can't do something that I've done myself. Well, now it's sealed, you are a TROLL. Everyone knows that FireWire/IEEE 1394/i.Link is licensed at $0.25 per a device with no limit on number of ports. The money is not to Apple but to a pool of companies who collectively own the various patents used in 1394.

    Well, not every one knows that. And, apple really screwed firewire over when the anounced a $1 charge per port (that was later changed). The poster isn't a troll, he just has out of date information
  • How can anything be 'easier to use' then ethernet? Of all the computer technologies I've ever used Ethernet has probably been the easiest to use. Basicaly just plug your computer in and go. I suppose it requires some planning on huge networks, but I don't see how firewire would be better there, especial since they are only now getting to be 100 meters, whereas ethernet has been that long for aeges.
  • IP communication over Firewire would not be hot-swapplable? How so? Oh, and i dont know of any digital camera that has IEEE 1394, I do know of a few Digital Video Cameras, however. Firewire is great for local devices but I cant see it ever replacing good old ethernet, ever. Hey, do you own a Mac? Probably? Maybe? Yes? No?.
  • I doubt you could power a whole computer over firewire, so the power aspect dosn't really help you out in networking...
  • Some manufacturer demo'd links over 60 to 100 km's of singlemode fibre. I was to busy playing with the funny gadgets they passed around to us for attending the presentation that i don't remember what kind of bandwidth they were talking about (hey, i don't have clients with offices that big). Pretty sure it was 10Mb or over. They already had it working along some oil-pipeline with a few repeaters along the way.

    Message on our company Intranet:
    "You have a sticker in your private area"
  • First of all, everything should be moved over to optical. AFAIK it's far faster than anything and can go the distance, so why argue over 100bT and ieee 1394. Sure, it's expensive, so are firewire devices. But here's the deal - the big networking businesses should just drop ethernet and firewire and everything else and concentrate on optical. High demand and mass production will bring Optical prices down around those of ethernet.
    b00ya, fastest networking available at an affordable price.
  • First of all, everything should be moved over to optical. AFAIK it's far faster than anything and can go the distance, so why argue over 100bT and ieee 1394.

    Sorry, but that's a stupid statement. You can not replace 1394 or Ethernet with optical lines because you'd need some standard specifying the physical connections and the protocol to be run over those.

    Guess which standards there are? You can do Ethernet over optical lines (until recently the only way to get Gigabit-Ethernet) and the 1394.b standard is also supposed to specify optical connections allowing 3.2 Gbit/s over 100m lengths (and 3.2 Gbit/s over 4.5m shielded electrical cable).

  • keep in mind that firewire is a new technology compared to Enet and that if firewire reaches the speeds that Ive been told (well over a GBit) then there is your advantage right there.
  • FireWire is NOT A BUS PROTOCOL. FireWire is a SERIAL protocol.

    FireWire is a serial bus (but see below). So is Ethernet, unless it's completely built using hubs or switches.

    A bus transmits multiple bits at the same time, a serial connection transmits one bit at a time.

    A bus connects multiple devices through the same wires. A port connects to only one device (note: PCI bus but AGP port). This definition is not dependent on whether there is one data line (serial) or more (parallel).

    Actually FireWire is physically not a bus, it only looks like that to the software (all data sent is seen by all nodes), i.e. it's a logical bus. Physically a device has one or more ports which each can connect to one other device. If a device has more than one port it repeats all information it receives on one port to all other ports and therefore acts as a hub.

  • Guess I was too lazy when I posted that earlier today... so thanks for doing my web browsing for me.

    And I guess I'll also just go get my question ("Is the 4-wire adapter compatible with the 6-wire one, and are there convertors so I can use the i.link port on my Sony laptop?") answered when I have some free time to read the IEEE1394 trade association web site...

    :)
  • Yu,

    Can you give us a reason for your detestation of your 'forbidden letter'. Was it involved in some traumatic incident earlier in life? Or is it part of some wider belief system?

    Do you work alone, or are you part of a broader movement?

    Also, are any more letters 'forbidden'? It would be really useful if you could give a complete list, so we can try to avoid any more infringements.

    TomV

  • The big potentional I see for firewire is networking regular consumer electronics with computers. Having sort of plug'n'play networking for things like your TV, VCR, DVD player, stereo etc... so that you could control them from your PC and move data between them easily, then that would be cool

    I saw something mentionted on ZDTV that cisco, compaq, micros~1, and (?)toshiba are developing a standard for home networking for PCs and household applicances that would work through your regular electrical sockets instead of ethernet.

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close