Design details Was:Re: [evla-sw-discuss] RTOSes ?

[John Ford]

Kevin Ryan writes:
 > Thank you for your comments John.  I don't believe we've met; my
 > name is Kevin Ryan and I'm a programmer in the ASG group.

Hi.

 > 
 > At the risk of straying away from the multiple RTOS subject, I
 > would like to explain some of where we are with the MIB.  Keep in 
 > mind that nothing is set in stone and lively debate is ongoing.

Thanks for the info, it was very enlightening.  I've gone and read the
rest of the archives, but much of what you wrote was not in there
anyway. 

<snip>
 > 
 > So, no matter how we do the second phase, our MIBs will have to 
 > be at least complex enough to support the frontend and backend
 > drivers - with the Ethernet frontend being the most demanding.

Indeed.  I would think that the communications protocol will take most
of the cycles of the MIB if you use a real TCP/IP stack. 

I have so many more questions that I will go to the Web documents and
read them for answers, but here are a few things I first thought of:

Why Ethernet?

How are you planning to connect up all 50-odd of these MIBs in each
antenna into a network without RFI and without breaking the bank?

Isn't deterministic performance needed for the MIB->control computer link?

It seems the system is architected as one computer to control the whole
array, instead of a computer per antenna.  This will make your life
much more difficult, I think.  Why was the distributed approach thrown
out?

Please ignore the questions if they're answered in the design
documents on the Web.

John