Atca and Μtca

ATCA and µTCA for LLRF
- comparison of architectures
Tomasz Jezynski
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron
Hamburg, Germany
ATCA and µTCA for LLRF - comparison of architectures
OUTLINE 2
 ATCA and µTCA
 xTCA for Physics
 ATCA based LLRF system
 µTCA for Physics based LLRF system
 Summary
Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

2010 April 8, 2010 Cockcroft Institute
xTCA 3
µTCA AdvancedTCA
MTCA.0 - Micro Telecommunication PICMG 3.0 is the base specification
Computing Architecture (backplane, (backplane, connectors, power,
connectors, power, management, size, management, size, cooling, ...)
cooling, ...) * PICMG 3.1 (Ethernet), 3.2 (InfiniBand)
3.3 (StarFabric), 3.4 (PCI Express), 3.5
(RapidIO)
AMC Blades
AMC.0 - Advanced Mezzanine Card
Base Specification (connector, power, AdvancedTCA blades
size, cooling) can be: Processors,
* AMC.1 PCIx
* AMC.2 Gigabit Ethernet and XAUI Switches, AMC carriers,
* AMC.3 Storage (ratified) etc.
* AMC.4 Serial RapidIO
PICMG - PCI Industrial Computer
Manufacturers Group
μTCA & ATCA systems 4

μTCA & ATCA systems 5

Why xTCA ? 6
 scalable
 reliability of up to 99.999%
 redundant power supply
 single power supply and adequate cooling
(redundant)
 high speed point-to-point serial connectivity
 fits our needs very well (modular, scalable, robust).
 flexible configuration of processing topology
according to algorithm within shelf
 shelf management for remote configuration and
monitoring

Advantages of xTCA platform 7
ATCA
 Rear Ios
 Cooling – 200 W per slot
 Large board 325 x 288 [mm]
 RF integration
 Interconnections on the standard backplane
 Scalable, flexible
μTCA
 Low price for a small system (one crate, few AMC)

Limits (disadvantages) of xTCA platform 8
ATCA
 not suitable for small systems
 high initial cost
 shared ressources (not real problem, but ...)
 each user wants to have own crate, own CPU (mental
problem)
μTCA
 No full mesh backplane
 Limited interconnectivity
 Board size to small for many application (RF, direct
sampling with sampling rate > 400 MHz due to heat
dissipation


μTCA – ATCA: main differences 9
ATCA μTCA
 Backplane topology Node
Node Node
Node Node
Fabric
Node
Board
Node
Node
 Cooling capacity 200W 20W (40)

 Board size [mm] 280x325 180x75(150)
 Rear IOs yes no

xTCA for Physics 10
Since xTCA has all attributes as standard, the Physics

Community has initiated a Working Group to look at the
specific requirements – PICMG xTCA for Physics
Coordinating Committee
 Goal: to develop specification for physics community

(instrumentation) and become a customer for industry (large
number of orders according to existing specification)

xTCA for Physics - 1st specifications 11
ATCA
 Define RTM connector (connector type, pin assignment)
 possibility to exchange different RTM modules between
different blades / system – standard for instrumentation
μTCA
 Define double with board as a standard board size
 Define backplane
 Define μRTM module and connector
 Large community – standard for instrumentation

ATCA for Physics 12
Connectors and
pin assignment

μTCA for Physics 13
μTCA μRTM
No exchangeability between μTCA and ATCA

μTCA for Physics - backplane 14

μTCA – impact of the new specification 15
no compatibility !

LLRF system - space 16

ATCA based LLRF system 17
Integrated: PIEZO controller, RF & clk distribution, rear connection

Available free slots for extension or other subsystem
All connection (except fibre) realized via standard backplane
ATCA carrier board and RTM for LLRF 18

μTCA system developed at DESY 19
Development is driven by control

group and users:
 BPM
 Control system (global)
 Optical synchronization
 Machine protection system
 Stepper motor controller
 Laser diode driver
 Coupler interlocks
 ...



22
μTCA based LLRF system

μTCA based LLRF system

problems 23
 No possibility to integrate PIEZO controller (size)

 Not all needed connection realized via backplane
(limited number of links, additional fibers required)
 Fixed board position (limited number of links)
 No space for new hardware (no links and space)
 No RF distribution (quality reduced – not enough space)
 Not enough cooling capacity for some modules
(powerful CPU)
 Impossible efficient implementation of the direct
sampling (heat, size, links)

Summary 24
 ATCA is better choice for LLRF

 Flexible configuration
 High level of integration
 Future upgrade
 It is possible to build LLRF system based on μTCA

 The system is limited but compatible with other
subsystems
 More space is needed
 No standard for (box) PIEZO and RF distribution
 Future integration of RF distribution and direct sampling is
not feasible

25
Thank you for attention


Atca and Μtca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atca and Μtca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATCA and µTCA for LLRF

 ATCA and µTCA

 xTCA for Physics

 ATCA based LLRF system

 µTCA for Physics based LLRF system

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA & ATCA systems 4

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA & ATCA systems 5

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

Advantages of xTCA platform 7

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

Limits (disadvantages) of xTCA platform 8

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA – ATCA: main differences 9

 Cooling capacity 200W 20W (40)

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

xTCA for Physics 10

Since xTCA has all attributes as standard, the Physics

 Goal: to develop specification for physics community

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

xTCA for Physics - 1st specifications 11

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

ATCA for Physics 12

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA for Physics 13

No exchangeability between μTCA and ATCA

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA for Physics - backplane 14

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA – impact of the new specification 15

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

LLRF system - space 16

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

ATCA based LLRF system 17

Integrated: PIEZO controller, RF & clk distribution, rear connection

ATCA carrier board and RTM for LLRF 18

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA system developed at DESY 19

Development is driven by control

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA system developed at DESY 20

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA system developed at DESY 21

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA based LLRF system

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

μTCA based LLRF system

 No possibility to integrate PIEZO controller (size)

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

 ATCA is better choice for LLRF

 It is possible to build LLRF system based on μTCA

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

Thank you for attention

Tomasz Jezynski, DESY EuCARD-SRF Annual Review 2010,

You might also like