OCP NIC Community Update�Septemer 2023

For Server Project�����Sub-group Project wiki: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/NIC�

Mailing List: https://ocp-all.groups.io/g/OCP-NIC

Agenda

• OCP Global Summit update
• SI Test Fixture update
• PCIe Gen6 update
• Double-wide SFF update

​

​

​

OCP Global Summit 2023

October 17 to 19: San Jose Convention Center

​

Break-out session/Presentation:

2 presentations tentatively accepted

• OCP NIC in 2023: 800G, PCIe Gen6 & Test Integration
• Ensuring Predictable Thermal Performance for Higher Speed OCP 3.0 NICs

​

Experience Center demo:

Servers, NICs, Test fixtures and Cable/Connectors ecosystem demo by

Amphenol, Broadcom, Dell, Intel, Meta, Portwell, TE connectivity

SI Test Fixtures

CLB 5.0 32GT/s status:

• Dell to present at IC meeting to release design to Wiki

​

CBB 5.0 32GT/s status:

• Multi-vendor testing results within predicted performance, suitable for CEM equivalent testing
• Dell to present at IC meeting to release design to Wiki

Jason

OCP NIC 3.0 SFF CBB 5.0 block diagram

Idea - Double SFF for Smart NICs

Spans over two 4C+ connectors

Spaced per M-FLW HPM specification

Regular and Tall options

160 Watt

x32 PCIe lanes

13% more board space than LFF

​

Opens:

• Management scheme
• Latching mechanism
• More

Illustration

Arnon/Harvey

OCP NIC 3.0 ejection mechanism

Customer A

Customer B

Customer D

Customer C

Customer X,Y,Z

D-SFF Option 1: FLW rev1.0 SFF recommendation

thumbscrew possible

No thumbscrew

• Dimensions follow M-FLW rev1.0
• Middle NIC card unable to support Pull-tab/Thumbscrew version
• Opens: Does this dimension support “ejector latch” faceplate?

​

D-SFF Option 2: Define separation to fit Pull-tab/Thumbscrew

Thumbscrew support

?

• Dimensions follow M-HPM Type4 (M-DNO4) and M-HPM Type7 (M-DNO7, aka wide 21” FLW)

​

Thumbscrew support

Would existing M-FLW fits dual Ejector latch?

• Existing M-FLW NIC connector position allow SFF/TSFF with ejector latch to operate without interference

D-SFF option preference

Option 1: Follow M-FLW

Option 2: Increase gap support thumbscrews

Customer A

Required cost for surprise removal is high.

Platform incline to internal latch version

Width of faceplate of thumbscrew became a limitation trade-off for other system feature

Customer B

Embrace internal lock since the start of OCP

​

Customer C

Majority thumbscrews. Some internal latch is niche

​

​

Vendor B

Ejector for Customer D, Internal lock Customer A & B

Thumbscrews for channel ODM CSP partners

On website wide distributions is thumbscrews

​

​

Vendor A

Internal lock for OEM

Thumbscrews for the rest of market

Able to support all flavors of OCP NIC including thumbscrews. Give the flexibility to customer

​

​

Customer D Wearing OCP HAT

Which form factor can drive most adoptions?

​

​

FLW adjusted the gaps to squeeze in tubing manifold or boot E1.S

While unable to support dual-thumb screws, it support dual internal lock or dual ejector latch

Trending

Gather feedback throughout the year

Provide your feedback at:�https://tinyurl.com/feedback2ocpnic