This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Small Form-factor Pluggable article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Enhanced small form-factor pluggable transceiver page were merged into Small Form-factor Pluggable. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
64b/66b encoding used for 16G is a more efficient encoding mechanism than 8b/10b used for 8G, and allows for the data rate to double without doubling the line rate. The result is the 14.025 Gbit/s line rate for 16G Fibre Channel.
This part is confusing. It seems to imply, that the data rate can be doubled within the same line rate by just moving from 8b/10b to 64b/66b. However, the overhead of 8b/10b is only 25% (compared to about 3%) while to double it would have to be at least 50%. Someone should elaborate on this, it seems unlikely to me, that the coding scheme alone can make up for the difference, the line rate sure has to increase by a much larger margin than the decrease in coding overhead can make up for. -- ThomasG-gPM ( talk) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi - a quick question to clear up a statement. In section "Small form-factor pluggable transceiver"
The following statement is made:
" Due to its smaller size, the SFP has replaced the gigabit interface converter (GBIC) in most applications; the SFP is sometimes referred to as a Mini-GBIC. In fact, no device with this name has ever been officially defined in the MSAs."
Which device name is being referred to (SFP or Mini-GBIC) by the statement "no device with this name has ever been official defined"?
Was SFP never officially defined or was Mini-GBIC never officially defined.
Many thanks, giz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiz ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in a way that explains the SFP transceivers to an audience who probably already know what they are or could extrapolate their meaning from the full name of the device. I have some experience with building and maintaining managed and unmanaged networks, yet I have no better idea what SFP is after reading this article than I did when I started. I tried thinking of ways to explain this using examples, but I really have no idea how this tool is used (aren't all ethernet ports hot-swappable?) Examples of a way in which an SFP transceiver could be used would be very helpful. General Ludd ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
did cisco write this article? - there is no mention of fibrechannel in any of it. I would fix, but I don't feel qualified to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.254 ( talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Kvng: and others: Could you please help me understand why the wikilink to pitcher - an article about the baseball/softball position - is appropriate for this article? I performed this search and don't see the wikilink used in any other non-baseball/softball related contexts. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Transmits from the right sideis ambiguous because that doesn't specify the POV for right. We'd have to say something like
Transmits from the left side when looking into the front of the transceiverThat said, I'm unable to find a supporting reference in a quick search. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The guideline here says suggests significant alternative names. There is no need for thirteen terms in the lead to be bolded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 23:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
All of the re-bolded terms are minor variants of the article title, e.g. QSFP. The reason that the MoS stresses significant is to avoid precisely the situation where a million things get bolded in the lead due to someone mechanically applying the "if it redirects here it has to be bold" rule. That there isn't enough material on the sub-articles to justify splitting them out is itself evidence that these are not individually notable enough terms to warrant bolding all (I stress again) thirteen of them. It makes the lead look like a mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 17:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Small Form-factor Pluggable article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Enhanced small form-factor pluggable transceiver page were merged into Small Form-factor Pluggable. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
64b/66b encoding used for 16G is a more efficient encoding mechanism than 8b/10b used for 8G, and allows for the data rate to double without doubling the line rate. The result is the 14.025 Gbit/s line rate for 16G Fibre Channel.
This part is confusing. It seems to imply, that the data rate can be doubled within the same line rate by just moving from 8b/10b to 64b/66b. However, the overhead of 8b/10b is only 25% (compared to about 3%) while to double it would have to be at least 50%. Someone should elaborate on this, it seems unlikely to me, that the coding scheme alone can make up for the difference, the line rate sure has to increase by a much larger margin than the decrease in coding overhead can make up for. -- ThomasG-gPM ( talk) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi - a quick question to clear up a statement. In section "Small form-factor pluggable transceiver"
The following statement is made:
" Due to its smaller size, the SFP has replaced the gigabit interface converter (GBIC) in most applications; the SFP is sometimes referred to as a Mini-GBIC. In fact, no device with this name has ever been officially defined in the MSAs."
Which device name is being referred to (SFP or Mini-GBIC) by the statement "no device with this name has ever been official defined"?
Was SFP never officially defined or was Mini-GBIC never officially defined.
Many thanks, giz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiz ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in a way that explains the SFP transceivers to an audience who probably already know what they are or could extrapolate their meaning from the full name of the device. I have some experience with building and maintaining managed and unmanaged networks, yet I have no better idea what SFP is after reading this article than I did when I started. I tried thinking of ways to explain this using examples, but I really have no idea how this tool is used (aren't all ethernet ports hot-swappable?) Examples of a way in which an SFP transceiver could be used would be very helpful. General Ludd ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
did cisco write this article? - there is no mention of fibrechannel in any of it. I would fix, but I don't feel qualified to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.254 ( talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Kvng: and others: Could you please help me understand why the wikilink to pitcher - an article about the baseball/softball position - is appropriate for this article? I performed this search and don't see the wikilink used in any other non-baseball/softball related contexts. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Transmits from the right sideis ambiguous because that doesn't specify the POV for right. We'd have to say something like
Transmits from the left side when looking into the front of the transceiverThat said, I'm unable to find a supporting reference in a quick search. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The guideline here says suggests significant alternative names. There is no need for thirteen terms in the lead to be bolded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 23:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
All of the re-bolded terms are minor variants of the article title, e.g. QSFP. The reason that the MoS stresses significant is to avoid precisely the situation where a million things get bolded in the lead due to someone mechanically applying the "if it redirects here it has to be bold" rule. That there isn't enough material on the sub-articles to justify splitting them out is itself evidence that these are not individually notable enough terms to warrant bolding all (I stress again) thirteen of them. It makes the lead look like a mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 17:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)