Talk:Small Form-factor Pluggable

SFP Line Rate

64b/66b encoding used for 16G is a more efficient encoding mechanism than 8b/10b used for 8G, and allows for the data rate to double without doubling the line rate. The result is the 14.025 Gbit/s line rate for 16G Fibre Channel.

This part is confusing. It seems to imply, that the data rate can be doubled within the same line rate by just moving from 8b/10b to 64b/66b. However, the overhead of 8b/10b is only 25% (compared to about 3%) while to double it would have to be at least 50%. Someone should elaborate on this, it seems unlikely to me, that the coding scheme alone can make up for the difference, the line rate sure has to increase by a much larger margin than the decrease in coding overhead can make up for. --ThomasG-gPM (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The line rate for 8G is 8G*10/8=10G. The line rate for 16G is 16G*66/64=16.5. Data rate is doubled from 8 to 16G but line rate only increases by a factor of 1.65. I think the last sentence is incorrect. Without multi-level encoding, you can't have a data rate higher than the line rate. I have removed this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I made some incorrect assumptions. Zac67 has reverted and touched this up. The full story can be found at Fibre Channel#Fibre Channel variants. ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

SFP or Mini GBIC

Hi - a quick question to clear up a statement. In section "Small form-factor pluggable transceiver"

The following statement is made:

" Due to its smaller size, the SFP has replaced the gigabit interface converter (GBIC) in most applications; the SFP is sometimes referred to as a Mini-GBIC. In fact, no device with this name has ever been officially defined in the MSAs."

Which device name is being referred to (SFP or Mini-GBIC) by the statement "no device with this name has ever been official defined"?

Was SFP never officially defined or was Mini-GBIC never officially defined.

Many thanks, giz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiz (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be written for a more general audience

This article is written in a way that explains the SFP transceivers to an audience who probably already know what they are or could extrapolate their meaning from the full name of the device. I have some experience with building and maintaining managed and unmanaged networks, yet I have no better idea what SFP is after reading this article than I did when I started. I tried thinking of ways to explain this using examples, but I really have no idea how this tool is used (aren't all ethernet ports hot-swappable?) Examples of a way in which an SFP transceiver could be used would be very helpful. General Ludd (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

did cisco write this article? - there is no mention of fibrechannel in any of it. I would fix, but I don't feel qualified to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.254 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made some improvements. The first three paragraphs of the lead should provide an accessible introduction. Further specific criticism is welcomed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Pitcher?

@Kvng: and others: Could you please help me understand why the wikilink to pitcher - an article about the baseball/softball position - is appropriate for this article? I performed this search and don't see the wikilink used in any other non-baseball/softball related contexts. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It's about a right-handed pitcher – one who throws a ball using his right hand, just like the SFP module transmitting out of its right-hand side (from its own POV). Perhaps you'd need to be an American to catch the drift. ;-) --Zac67 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zac67: I am an American who doesn't understand how the wikilink to pitcher aids the reader's understanding significantly. As someone who knows nothing about telecommunications, the description "they transmit on the right and receive on the left" seems clear enough without the wikilink. The link to handedness "about left- and right-handedness in humans" also seems like overlinking. GoingBatty (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: OK – I think it's a pretty good mnemonic (pitch with right hand, receive with left) but we can rephrase it. Just leave out the pitchers? --Zac67 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zac67: Unless there is a reliable source demonstrating that the SFP transceivers are generally referred to as "right-handed pitchers", I suggest leaving out the metaphor. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, I rescued this nugget from Talk:Small form-factor pluggable transceiver/Archive 1#Port definition and incorporated it in the article. I'm never again going to wonder which side is TX and I assumed it would have similar benefit for readers. Saying that it Transmits from the right side is ambiguous because that doesn't specify the POV for right. We'd have to say something like Transmits from the left side when looking into the front of the transceiver That said, I'm unable to find a supporting reference in a quick search. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with GoingBatty, unless there's RS, the pitcher reference shouldn't be included - it has issues (right hand vs left handed pitchers, cultural bias) that e.g. right-hand rule doesn't. Widefox; talk 11:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bolding

The guideline here says suggests significant alternative names. There is no need for thirteen terms in the lead to be bolded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've looked through it and they all look significant to me. Your count is high because it includes acronyms and their expansions in many cases. There are 25 redirects to this article so we're not including all of them. Does anyone else have input on this? ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Seconding Kvng here. Redirects and significant alt names do require bolding. Expanded names without redirect don't, but I can't make out any of those. In theory, many of those redirects could have their own page but currently there's not enough material justifying a split. --Zac67 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, there were more articles in the past and they were all merged here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the re-bolded terms are minor variants of the article title, e.g. QSFP. The reason that the MoS stresses significant is to avoid precisely the situation where a million things get bolded in the lead due to someone mechanically applying the "if it redirects here it has to be bold" rule. That there isn't enough material on the sub-articles to justify splitting them out is itself evidence that these are not individually notable enough terms to warrant bolding all (I stress again) thirteen of them. It makes the lead look like a mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I use this page in my work. I searched Wikipedia for QSFP-DD and was redirected here and assumed I had been misdirected because I did not see QSFP-DD. I see you've gone back and forth on this and the bold has been restored. I hope this is where it stays. WP:ASTONISH should be more important than messiness. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)