[USRP-users] Hardware selection for X310-based system

Marcus Müller marcus.mueller at ettus.com
Fri Jul 24 07:09:15 EDT 2015

The difference is that the X310 has the bigger FPGA, which only makes a 
difference if you want to do custom processing on it -- for example, 
building a largish RF NoC application. Otherwise, X300 and X310 are 
absolutely identical.

Best regards,

On 24.07.2015 13:05, Vladimir via USRP-users wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I wish to thank all of you for valuable information, it's very helpful 
> for us! Looking at all this, seems that we could start from 10 GBE 
> link and then see if we need more latency or whatever else to try PCIe.
> I forgot one question yesterday. From the point that has been 
> discussed, how big is the difference btw X300 and X310? One of the 
> diffs is that X310 has more memory - ~3.5 MB if I don't mistake, 
> comparing to 2 MB in X300. Does it use this memory to do some sort of 
> buffering when transferring data to/from host? Will it help to 
> withstand any short hitches/delays that happen during streaming? For 
> now, it's the only reason I could imagine to prefer X310 from this 
> point of view.
> Again, thank you very much for the info!
> Vladimir
>     Пятница, 24 июля 2015, 1:22 +02:00 от Marcus Müller via USRP-users
>     <usrp-users at lists.ettus.com>:
>     Hi Vladimir,
>     although he claimed not to answer your question, I think Rob did
>     an excellent job of providing the info you've asked for; thank you!
>     Hence, I'll keep this as short as possible
>     On 23.07.2015 22:31, Vladimir via USRP-users wrote:
>>     1. We already have an Intel X520-DA2 board which Ettus recommends for 10GBE input. Would it suffice to order just 783343-01 (10 Gb SFP+ ETHERNET CABLE, 1M) to X310 kit to get complete setup to be able to stream data into/from PC?
>     That, or any direct attach SFP+ 10GE cable, or a pair of
>     transceivers for whatever electrical or optical medium you plan to
>     use.
>>     2. From what I read earlier here and saw at Ettus website, I understand that PCI-Express Connectivity Kit (PCIe – Desktop) is NI PCIe-8371 board with the cord. NI states its speed to be 798 MB/s. But to stream 100 MS/s we need 800 MB/s. Is their number - 798 - approximate (which would look kind of strange for me given its precision :)) and this won't in practice lead to speed problems, or do they actually mean 798 MiB/s, or some other explanation? Could anyone shed some light on this?
>     I must admit that this is news to me. But yes, PCIe is*not* the
>     bus of choice for maximum throughput. In fact, most PCIe 10Gigabit
>     network adapters, and especially the Intel devices, have drivers
>     that are very good of distributing work across multiple CPU cores
>     and reducing interrupt pressure -- it's in fact progressively hard
>     for some customers to get high rates (>ca. 150MS/s total) with the
>     PCIe interface, mainly because the NI driver for compatibility
>     reasons is single threaded, and a single core can only spin so fast.
>>     3. Would it make sense to look at the NI-recommended alternative - 8381 board? Given that the price difference on NI site for 8371 and 8381 is just $50, is it a good idea to go with 8381 to be sure it definitely won't be a bottleneck? Or it was not tested with X310 and we might encounter some compatibility issues, or any other reasons against it? If it was tested, can we order it from Ettus instead of 8371 at comparable price?
>     I must admit I'm really not overly familiar with the NI side of
>     PCIe / PXI backend equipment. Generally, you only need to
>     use/either/ 10GE /or/ PCIe. Use PCIe if you want to combine things
>     into large LabVIEW-commanded clusters of USRPs  [1], or if you
>     know that you need the possibility to reduce USRP-host latency of
>     the expense of more CPU consumption. For the general user, I
>     recommend 10GE.
>>     4. Do I get it right that if we encounter problems on 100 MS/s, the next sampling rate we can use would be 50 MS/s, as we must use integer decimation values from the max one? And in this case we'll get 100 MHz bandwidth and limit X310 potential of 120 MHz. Am I correct here?
>     You're quite right. So the point is that you can only use integer
>     factors of the master clock rate as sampling rates. For the
>     default Master Clock Rate of 200MHz, these are 200MS/s, 100MS/s,
>     (66.666..MS/s), 50MS/s, ..., but there is also the 120MS/s master
>     clock rate, which is predominantly used by LabView, and can hence
>     be used to get sampling rates of 120, 60, (40), 30 MS/s. Also, we
>     have an cellular-friendly 184.32 MHz master clock rate. Notice
>     that I put some potential sampling rates into parentheses; these
>     are odd decimations of the master clock rate, which hence don't
>     exhibit the same quality of flatness/anti-aliasing as the even
>     decimations.
>>     5. Am I coerrect that the frequency accuracy of stock X310 oscillator is much better than that of previous models, so we don't need external clock if we don't plan to sync several devices, work at large distance, etc?
>     Uh, to be honest, I'm not quite sure about the "much better" part.
>     "much better" depends very much on your needs; if you couldn't use
>     e.g. the N210 for its frequency offset or drift being much too
>     large, then you'll want to use an external reference here, too.
>     However, most customers are quite happy with the oscillators we
>     have on board -- simply because frequency offset is a given fact
>     in digital communications, and typically, the oscillator
>     outperforms things like mobile terminals very significantly. This
>     doesn't necessary apply to things like high-performance
>     interferometry, or very accurate signal detection.
>>     It won't be used for any 'real-world' cases like network deployment etc, - still, speaking about GSM/UMTS lab experiments (like connecting one-two MS in the room), may we need additional clock source?
>     No. Base Stations/eNodeBs define the clock of the cells they
>     supply, so you don't have to worry. The oscillators really aren't
>     that bad -- they just aren't perfect.
>>     Am I missing any critical parts to build up the working SDR set?
>     Well, you mentioned using UBX-160, but you/can/ use both
>     daughterboard slots with one daughterboard each, allowing you to
>     do 2x2 MIMO.
>     A few typical frequently answered questions' answers:
>     * all RF interfaces are 50 Ohm matched
>     * the output of the UBX daughterboard can go up to/roughly/ 20dBm;
>     for details, see [2]; safe input range is -infty to -15dBm.
>     * UHD itself doesn't need any special privileges and runs
>     completely in userland. Only the network card or PCIe bridge card
>     have kernel drivers.
>     * Ettus support will be on your side.
>>     I would also like to hear from people who tried to get about 100-120 MHz RX-TX bandwidth from X3X0, e.g. just simply streaming at 100 MS/s to/from disk and doing processing offline later  - which is the most stable and reliable way to do it - 10GBE or PCIe?
>     In my experience: 10GE. The problem here definitely is, as Rob
>     mentioned, that it's in no way "simple" to save 2x 100MS/s to
>     disk. There's been (and will always be, and that's a good and just
>     thing) long discussions on the needs, feasibility and example
>     implementation support of sustaining such hard drive write rates.
>     A quick calculation shows that, for 16bit short integer fixed
>     point complex recording:
>     datarate(100MS/s) = 16bit/number * 2numbers/complex *1complex/S *
>     100MS/s =3.2Gb/s for a single channel!
>     Now, you need to/guarantee/ these rates, meaning, that unless you
>     can come up with ridiculous amount of write buffering, the hard
>     drive minimum write rate must be above this value, and that
>     doesn't even account for the fact that data is typically written
>     to file systems that add even further overhead and latency. Now, I
>     just came up with this less than reliable source[2]; bad news is
>     that the fastest hdd has an*average* write rate of 193MB/s (ca
>     8*200Mb/s = 1.6Gb/s) according to their benchmark -- meaning that
>     the minimum rate will be significantly lower. So even a raid of 2
>     or 3 hard drives will not be sufficient, and of four only if there
>     weren't such things as seek latency. In short: Writing that bulk
>     of data to disk in realtime isn't easy anymore; but RAM disks work
>     fine, so be sure to have enough RAM.
>     Best regards,
>     Marcus Müller
>     [1]http://www.ni.com/white-paper/52382/en/
>     [2]
>     http://files.ettus.com/performance_data/ubx/UBX-without-UHD-corrections.pdf
>     [3] http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/
>     _______________________________________________
>     USRP-users mailing list
>     USRP-users at lists.ettus.com </compose?To=USRP%2dusers at lists.ettus.com>
>     http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> USRP-users at lists.ettus.com
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20150724/fd875054/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the USRP-users mailing list