|
||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| home |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| columns > | Editor's Foreword |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interesting trends affecting VME
Still waters run deep. On the surface, it may appear to the casual observer that there’s not much going on with VME. After all, this “bus” just celebrated its 25th anniversary last year and one might be tempted to adhere to the cliché “everything has already been invented.” Far from it.
What about VXS?
Several notable industry vendors have taken strong issue with this notion. After that article appeared, and according to someone close to VITA, I was told “there are over 50 VXS products on the market from 28 different vendors … a factor of 3x or more over VPX.” These products include backplanes and chassis, DSP engines, FPGAs and receivers, SBCs and carrier boards, tuners, and switch cards. That’s a lot of vendors and a lot of boards all rallying around VXS. I also hasten to point out that VITA 46 is not backward compatible with legacy VMEbus systems whereas VXS is (with the appropriate backplane1). In defense applications, for example, existing programs will choose VXS as their migration strategy first, while VPX should be relegated only to new designs that need barn-burner performance and more I/O than YouTube has videos of celebrities doing something stupid. Can’t we all just get along? Dick Somes, PICMG’s technical officer, reported at VSO that the VITA 56 mezzanine working group (originally proposed by GE Fanuc) leverages PICMG’s Advanced Mezzanine Card (AdvancedMC) spec, and VITA has been granted permission to use PICMG copyrighted material with attribution. In exchange, PICMG has been studying VITA 56 to determine if it’s a solution for a “shorter” version of AdvancedMC. Additionally, both VITA 41 and VITA 46 (see previous section) “have an interest in channel characterization, and therefore [have an interest in] channel models and methods being developed with the PICMG ICC group,” says Somes. Conversely, as PICMG gets working on a ruggedized version of MicroTCA (a chassis concept based upon insertable AdvancedMCs), the organization might make use of some of the environmental performance levels being proposed by VSO in VITA 47 and VITA 48. Seems to me like continued cooperation is the order of the day. Would you like some Java with that C(ream)? In an E-cast (webinar) entitled “Leveraging Java Strengths in Multi-tiered Critical Architectures,” CTO Kelvin Nilson of Aonix – a company with expertise in Ada and Java – made a compelling argument for the efficiency of Java compared with C/C++. Moreover, Java’s new “hard real-time profile” (a subset of RTSJ and J2SE, per JSR-302) eliminates the requisite garbage collection and establishes determinism reminiscent of an RTOS. Fellow Ada vendor DDC-I seems to agree. By the time you read this, the company will announce its own Java product complete with real-time garbage collection, speed that they promise will be faster than Aonix’s PERC Java, the ability to do mixed language programming (Java calls to C, C++, Fortran, and Ada), and an Eclipse SDK. With two very credible vendors and Java choices, look for Java-enabled VME boards by year’s end. 1Before I get letters to the contrary, it is true that legacy VME boards can coexist with VITA 46 (VPX) and VITA 41 (VXS) boards with the appropriate backplane. However, VXS is still officially “VME,” whereas VPX is officially “not VME.” Decide for yourself which is most likely to interoperate with legacy boards.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
©MMIX VME and Critical Systems. An OpenSystems Media, LLC publication. About this Magazine and Website | Contact Us | VME and Critical Systems Media Kit |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||