Independent 3rd Party Test Study for 10GBE New insights for end users and consultants
Content Why & Who & What & How? Qualification Testing Study Results Study Conclusions Unmasking of UTP fairytales
Where The Discussion Started 1. IEEE 802.3an (10GB Ethernet) is the first application standard confirming that for 10GBE STP performs better than UTP!!! 2. The reason for the limited UTP performance with 10GBE is EMC
What s makes 10GBE different? 10GBE is very prone to EMC issues like radiation and immunity. Why? 10 Gb/s encoding is very sensitive to signal-to noise ratio Environmental noise level gains importance The system is self disturbing ANEXT Leiterschleife Blitzstromableiter Parallel geführte Leitungen Bild 6: Elektromagnetischer Impuls (Obo Bettermann)
Cabling Standard Reaction 10 Gb/s Ethernet requires improved Alien Crosstalk and EMC behavior ISO/IEC 11801 amendments 1+2 define Alien Crosstalk parameters for Class E A / Cat.6 A and higher in order to cover the disturbance from the system itself ISO/IEC 14763-2 / EN 50173-1 define the MICE table specifying Environments classes Test parameters and procedures Electromagnetic Specifications cover EMC MICE environments are mandatory for cabling systems
MICE specification for EMC ( ISO/IEC 11801 ed. 2.1) ISO/IEC 11801 ISO/IEC 14763-2
MICE specification Requirement Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Mechanical rating M 1 M 2 M 3 Ingress rating I 1 I 2 I 3 Climatic C 1 C 2 C 3 Electromagnetic rating EMC E 1 E 2 E 3 Level 1 is a office environment with low impact Level 2 is a office/ enterprise building environment with medium impact Level 3 is a industrial environment with high impact Important: For some customer groups (hospitals, airports) may a combination of different classes possible ( M 1,I 2 ; C 2, E 3) )
MICE specification for EMC
UTP vs. STP An Independent Study
Independent 3rd Party Study Unique Objectives: Qualification of Class E A systems Radiation testing Live 10GBASE-T Application testing MICE environments applications Practical testing Investigating the myth about STP systems Study conducted from 06/2008-06/2009 at GHMT AG, Germany All tests done according international standards in an EMC chamber
Who is GHMT AG? Founded 1992 in Bexbach, Germany Independent test laboratory according to ISO/IEC 17025 (first lab accredited in Europe back in 2000) One of the 2 leading cabling test labs in Europe Strong expertise in Cabling & Systems EMC analysis & concepts Wireless applications
10GBASE-T live Test Setup
UTP vs. STP Qualification Testing
The Qualification of the Candidates 3 U/UTP systems Class E A 3 STP systems Class E A F/UTP S/FTP (standard) S/FTP (high end) The six systems were technically up to date and came from market leading companies and had to pass ISO/IEC 11801 Class EA channel
Qualification Results UTP Class E A systems perform well for In-Channel parameters like NEXT, RL etc. but 2 out of 3 clearly failed in achieving the Alien Crosstalk requirements (see red mark) STP Class E A Systems show much better Alien Crosstalk behaviour because of much higher coupling attenuation (see green mark) (explanation later on) Conclusion: Twist-only noise suppression is not sufficient to require 10 Gb/s system immunity Cut: Because of the insufficient ANEXT behaviour, system 00 has been excluded from the study
UTP vs. STP Study Results
EN 55022 / FCC part 15 - Radiation 10 Gb/s shows higher radiation compared to 1 Gb/s
EN 55022 / FCC part 15 - Radiation Comparison of both technologies STP radiates much less
Immunity Testing according MICE I Conducted high frequency Radiated High Frequency U/UTP systems didn t fulfill any MICE definition for HF immunity
Practical Test: Radiated Frequency Cabling systems have been tested with real practical disturbers ( Mobile Phones and Walkie Talkie) 10 Gb/s data traffic was monitored System 01 System 02 System 03 System 04 System 05 Phones Walkie /Talkie 10GBASE-T data transfer on U/UTP systems data has been impacted heavily or transfer stopped completely!
Immunity Testing according MICE II Electrostatic discharge Magnetic field Fast transient/burst immunity test U/UTP did only meet magnetic field testing and failed for electrostatic discharge and fast transients
Practical Test: Fluorescent Lamps
Practical Test: Fluorescent Lamps System 01 System 02 System 03 System 04 System 05 Fluorescence Lamp 10GBASE-T data transfer stopped completely or was heavily disturbed with U/UTP systems when distance from cabling to lamp was < 0,5 m The same effect could be observed when lamp has been switched on/off and distance lampcabling was > 0,5 m No effect on STP Cabling
Practical Test: Distance to Power Cable Separation distance to power cables Distances between 0-50 cm Simulation of common installation practice with burst placement on power cables
Practical Test: Fast Transients U/UTP systems need as a minimum 30 cm distance to power cables STP systems have no limitations
Data impact of separation distance What happened with my data when those effects occur?
UTP vs. STP Study Conclusions
Test Result Summary
Noise Immunity = Better Performance
Coupling attenuation is key Parameter System 01 U/UTP System 02 U/UTP System 03 F/UTP System 04 S/FTP System 05 S/FTP Radiated radiofrequency EN 61000-4-3 Conducted high frequency EN 61000-4-6 Electrical fast transient/burst EN 61000-4-4 -- - + ++ +++ - - ++ ++ +++ - - ++ ++ +++ Magnetic field Immunity +++ EN 61000-4-8 +++ +++ +++ +++ Electrostatic discharge immunity test EN 61000-4-2 - - ++ ++ ++ Coupling attenuation 45 47,5 78 76 79 (db)
Conclusion: STP is better For more Details: www.utp-vs-stp.com
UTP vs. STP Unmasking UTP Fairytales
Why are there UTP Fairytales? Although there are several evidences showing the superiority of STP systems, there are still a lot of concerns about STP in the market place These concerns mainly exist because of the fear-making arguments (myths; fairy tales) spread by UTP suppliers the lack of knowledge The independent study had a look at that
The Fairytales STP systems act like an antenna and radiate STP systems need to be grounded on both sides STP requires more complex grounding and bonding STP systems can create ground loops resulting in current on the screen STP has a lot of installation disadvantages (speed/space/screen)
Test Result: STP Systems act like an antenna U/UTP systems radiate much more than STP systems One reason for ANEXT issues
Grounding on both sides Test Result: Grounding on both sides does not improve the EMC performance of STP systems Single side grounding already exceeds the standard requirements Radiated HF Conducted HF Burst
STP Grounding is complex The Truth: The standards specify the mandatory use of the TN-S distribution system. Independant from UTP or STP!!! Grounding is for personal safety
Ground Loop Test Result: 1. TN-S with a good meshed earthing system does not lead to screen current 2. Furthermore, current on the screen does not effect data transmission System 03 System 04 System 05 Induced current on the screen according MICE 1 GB/s 0,46 A 1,74 A 2,30 A Mixed 0,48 A 1,90 A 2,40 A 10 GB/s 0,45 A 2,00 A 2,60 A System 03 System 04 System 05 1 GB/s No influence on data traffic while current on the screen Mix 10 GB/s
The Truth: STP Installation is complex STP is quick & easy & small mm 9 7 5 UTP STP Cat. 6A STP cable is smaller than Cat. 6A UTP cable. Including Screen Contact
UTP vs. STP Overall Conclusion
UTP vs. STP This independent 3rd party study clearly shows The EMC parameters like ANEXT and coupling attenuation dominate the cabling channel performance for 10Gb/s Ethernet Class EA channels UTP Systems do not meet theses EMC parameters by design. Complex and time consuming installation practices are required to improve the UTP performance All arguments against STP come from UTP suppliers and are not at all based on technical research. There is no independent 3rd party test from UTP suppliers confirming their messages STP is proven to be better for 10Gb/s and more and worksbydesign
Questions? UTP vs. STP The future is shielded