Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
>If you manage to get this running on a more modern Xilinx Eval board, >please let us know -- I would love to try it out. Everything that I >have every seen from Niklaus Wirth has been excellent. > >On 03/05/2014 01:04 AM, rupertlssmith@googlemail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:51:06 PM UTC, MGreim wrote: >>> http://www.projectoberon.com/ >>> Its a complete computer including a graphical operating system in a small >>> FPGA. >> >> Very cool. What is the daughter board for? If its just PS/2 mouse and SD card connector, I have some more sophisticated Xilinx eval boards with those already on them. It might not be too hard to get it running on one of them. >> >> Rupert >> > Rupert, yes the daugtherboard has only a connector for the Mouse and a SD card holder with a SD for the file system. Markus --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comArticle: 156326
Hi everyone, is there any license server out there providing licenses on a 'per-use' base? <background> we have several licenses in house, mostly node-locked, some floating but in our FPGA design flow a great deal of the time is spent on a stupid editor (vhdl/verilog) with very little use of the license itself. </background> We were wondering whether exists some services which 'lend' the license on a 'per-use' base and is charged for the amount of *actual* time the license is used. Any comment/idea/suggestion is appreciated. Al -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?Article: 156327
Hi there, I was wondering if there's any one out there working with a cloud design flow which is tool agnostic. The reason for asking is that I'm trying to evaluate if there's a way to integrate the benefits of a cloud service (with more hardware resources than our inhouse ones) into our design flow. We clearly noticed that several times our simulations would take too much time and we prefer to go directly to the bench in order to verify a specific function. This approach forces us to rely on the bench availability (which is not always granted) and may not always be efficient (we need to set up special configurations which gives us greater observability/controllability on the bench). Another main advantage is the design space exploration: having much more power available would result in the possibility to throw more cpus at a specific problem, hence addressing the issue faster. Last but not least, regression testing and automated testing can be a great advantage of moving to the cloud. Any new module/component which is ready to be integrated in the overall design can be automatically included in the regression suite which is regularly running and can spot early integration issues. So far I've heard/read about 'Plunify', which supports the Quartus software in the cloud, but we are working with Microsemi (former Actel) devices and there's nothing available out of the box. Should we set up the environment the hard way, i.e. a set of scripts to handle the flow remotely? This might require a great initial effort but it has the benefit that we know what we are doing and we can fix it anytime an issue arises (provided that the share of time devoted to fixing problems doesn't eat designing time!). Or maybe there are tools out there, or services, which are already providing such environments? Ideas/comments/suggestions are more than welcome. Cheers, Al -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?Article: 156328
On 10/03/2014 13:30, alb wrote: > Hi everyone, > > is there any license server out there providing licenses on a 'per-use' > base? > > <background> > we have several licenses in house, mostly node-locked, some floating but > in our FPGA design flow a great deal of the time is spent on a stupid > editor (vhdl/verilog) with very little use of the license itself. > </background> > > We were wondering whether exists some services which 'lend' the license > on a 'per-use' base and is charged for the amount of *actual* time the > license is used. > > Any comment/idea/suggestion is appreciated. > > Al > Most vendors have a so called term license, that is you purchase a license for several month. This is relative expensive but might be a solution for you. If you spend most of your time with an editor then get 1 license and share it amongst your engineers. You can install the license on a server and VNC into it, share a dongle etc. Hans www.ht-lab.comArticle: 156329
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, HT-Lab wrote: Hi Hans, > On 10/03/2014 13:30, alb wrote: >> We were wondering whether exists some services which 'lend' the license >> on a 'per-use' base and is charged for the amount of *actual* time the >> license is used. > > Most vendors have a so called term license, that is you purchase a license > for several month. This is relative expensive but might be a solution for > you. I was aware about this, but it does not solve the issue. The amount of projects we work on is sufficient to require a 'continuous' access to the licenses. Nevertheless the amount of sharing can be greatly optimized if there was a service which charged on per-use base. > > If you spend most of your time with an editor then get 1 license and share it > amongst your engineers. You can install the license on a server and VNC into > it, share a dongle etc. sharing a dongle is something we do already (manually). Even if this is the case and the users were using it throughout the whole working day (which is not true) a dongle is grossly underused. Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use them and make some profit out of them :-). -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?Article: 156330
On 10/03/2014 16:17, alb wrote: Hi Alb, > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, HT-Lab wrote: > Hi Hans, > >> On 10/03/2014 13:30, alb wrote: >>> We were wondering whether exists some services which 'lend' the license >>> on a 'per-use' base and is charged for the amount of *actual* time the >>> license is used. >> >> Most vendors have a so called term license, that is you purchase a >> license for several month. This is relative expensive but might be a >> solution for you. > > I was aware about this, but it does not solve the issue. The amount of > projects we work on is sufficient to require a 'continuous' access to > the licenses. Nevertheless the amount of sharing can be greatly > optimized if there was a service which charged on per-use base. <realism> If a per-use scheme would bring in any extra money then I am sure the EDA (or any other) industry will adopt it. Trying to get something supported which will bring in less money is never going to be easy ;-) </realism> > >> >> If you spend most of your time with an editor then get 1 license and >> share it amongst your engineers. You can install the license on a >> server and VNC into it, share a dongle etc. > > sharing a dongle is something we do already (manually). You can share a dongle over the network, not sure how legal this is. Even if this is > the case and the users were using it throughout the whole working day > (which is not true) a dongle is grossly underused. > > Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use > them and make some profit out of them :-). You will find yourself quickly in court..... Regards, Hans www.ht-lab.comArticle: 156331
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 18.00.25 UTC+1 skrev HT-Lab: > On 10/03/2014 16:17, alb wrote: > > > > Hi Alb, > > > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, HT-Lab wrote: > > > Hi Hans, > > > > > >> On 10/03/2014 13:30, alb wrote: > > >>> We were wondering whether exists some services which 'lend' the license > > >>> on a 'per-use' base and is charged for the amount of *actual* time the > > >>> license is used. > > >> > > >> Most vendors have a so called term license, that is you purchase a > > >> license for several month. This is relative expensive but might be a > > >> solution for you. > > > > > > I was aware about this, but it does not solve the issue. The amount of > > > projects we work on is sufficient to require a 'continuous' access to > > > the licenses. Nevertheless the amount of sharing can be greatly > > > optimized if there was a service which charged on per-use base. > > > > <realism> > > If a per-use scheme would bring in any extra money then I am sure the > > EDA (or any other) industry will adopt it. Trying to get something > > supported which will bring in less money is never going to be easy ;-) > > </realism> > > > > > > > >> > > >> If you spend most of your time with an editor then get 1 license and > > >> share it amongst your engineers. You can install the license on a > > >> server and VNC into it, share a dongle etc. > > > > > > sharing a dongle is something we do already (manually). > > > > You can share a dongle over the network, not sure how legal this is. > > > > Even if this is > > > the case and the users were using it throughout the whole working day > > > (which is not true) a dongle is grossly underused. > > > > > > Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use > > > them and make some profit out of them :-). > > > > You will find yourself quickly in court..... > yeh I seems to remember year ago someone tried to start service licenses sharing. With people in different time zones that would be pretty smart It was quickly shot down, can't remember what big eda tool it was but I think there was something about not being allowed to use a license more than a mile from the company that bought it -LasseArticle: 156332
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:07:07 PM UTC+5:30, Uwe Bonnes wrote: > Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > > > Elam <elampooranan@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I understand that the price depends on the volume etc > > > > but I would like to know the per unit price of Virtex 7 FPGA.. > > > > > > Any guesses.. > > > > > Search for XC7V on www.findchips.com. > > > > No online availability for now. Prices last time I checked was up to 50 k$... > > > > Bye > > -- > > Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de > > > > Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt > > --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ---------- The prices indicated are for trays? How to identify a tray or single device from the part number ? And how do we know how many parts are there in one tray ?Article: 156333
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: Hi Lasse, > Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 18.00.25 UTC+1 skrev HT-Lab: [] >>> Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use >> >>> them and make some profit out of them :-). >> >> >> >> You will find yourself quickly in court..... >> > > yeh I seems to remember year ago someone tried to start service licenses > sharing. With people in different time zones that would be pretty smart > > It was quickly shot down, can't remember what big eda tool it was but I > think there was something about not being allowed to use a license more > than a mile from the company that bought it Damn it I think you are right! I used to have access to Cern licenses' pool but the maintainer warned me about using it only within the site /thanks/ to a clause mentioning some physical distance between the user and the license... And what if I'm travelling around the globe but still want to have access to the license that I legitemely paid? <rant mode on> In a world where everything is connected I find these type of clauses a threat to individual's freedom. Imagine if you buy a pair of shoes that you can only wear within a single city, or a cup of coffee that you can only drink within 2 blocks from the coffee shop... <rant mode off>Article: 156334
On 11/03/2014 07:58, alb wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > Hi Lasse, > >> Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 18.00.25 UTC+1 skrev HT-Lab: > [] >>>> Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use >>> >>>> them and make some profit out of them :-). >>> >>> >>> >>> You will find yourself quickly in court..... >>> >> >> yeh I seems to remember year ago someone tried to start service >> licenses sharing. With people in different time zones that would be >> pretty smart >> >> It was quickly shot down, can't remember what big eda tool it was but >> I think there was something about not being allowed to use a license >> more than a mile from the company that bought it > > Damn it I think you are right! I used to have access to Cern licenses' > pool but the maintainer warned me about using it only within the site > /thanks/ to a clause mentioning some physical distance between the user > and the license... He is right, the distance clause is there to prevent company A from sharing its license with company B next door. > > And what if I'm travelling around the globe but still want to have > access to the license that I legitemely paid? I just checked my Modelsim license agreement which states: A site is restricted to a one-half mile (800meter) radius. Customer may have Software temporarily used by an employee for telecommuting purposes from locations other than a Customer office, such as the employee's resi dence, an airport or hotel, provided that such employee's primary place of employment is the site where the Software is authorized for use. So you are OK to use it on your travels (assuming you use Modelsim). I suspect that most EDA tools have a clause like this. Just make sure you have your dongle insured in case you loose it. If you want to use licenses globally you have to pay for a WAN license. Regards, Hans. www.ht-lab.com > > <rant mode on> > In a world where everything is connected I find these type of clauses a > threat to individual's freedom. Imagine if you buy a pair of shoes that > you can only wear within a single city, or a cup of coffee that you can > only drink within 2 blocks from the coffee shop... > <rant mode off>Article: 156335
jkrshnan.v@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:07:07 PM UTC+5:30, Uwe Bonnes wrote: ... > > No online availability for now. Prices last time I checked was up > > to 50 k$. Now 5k is a starting point... > The prices indicated are for trays? How to identify a tray or single device > from the part number ? And how do we know how many parts are there in > one tray ? The prices are per part... -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------Article: 156336
Uwe Bonnes wrote: > jkrshnan.v@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:07:07 PM UTC+5:30, Uwe Bonnes wrote: > ... >>> No online availability for now. Prices last time I checked was up >>> to 50 k$. > > Now 5k is a starting point... > >> The prices indicated are for trays? How to identify a tray or single device >> from the part number ? And how do we know how many parts are there in >> one tray ? > > The prices are per part... A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my designs any time soon. -- GaborArticle: 156337
GaborSzakacs wrote: > > A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) > to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my > designs any time soon. > REALLY! 1900 balls, and all of them have to solder perfectly or the chip has to come off and be re-balled! Arghhhh! I'd LOVE to know who is actually USING chips that expensive. Must be the military in those $500 Million airplanes. JonArticle: 156338
Den tirsdag den 11. marts 2014 09.48.45 UTC+1 skrev HT-Lab: > On 11/03/2014 07:58, alb wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > > > Hi Lasse, > > > > > >> Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 18.00.25 UTC+1 skrev HT-Lab: > > > [] > > >>>> Maybe we should think about lending *our* licenses when we do not use > > >>> > > >>>> them and make some profit out of them :-). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You will find yourself quickly in court..... > > >>> > > >> > > >> yeh I seems to remember year ago someone tried to start service > > >> licenses sharing. With people in different time zones that would be > > >> pretty smart > > >> > > >> It was quickly shot down, can't remember what big eda tool it was but > > >> I think there was something about not being allowed to use a license > > >> more than a mile from the company that bought it > > > > > > Damn it I think you are right! I used to have access to Cern licenses' > > > pool but the maintainer warned me about using it only within the site > > > /thanks/ to a clause mentioning some physical distance between the user > > > and the license... > > > > He is right, the distance clause is there to prevent company A from > > sharing its license with company B next door. > or "worse" company A, B and C in Asia, Europe and the US -LasseArticle: 156339
Den tirsdag den 11. marts 2014 22.23.36 UTC+1 skrev Jon Elson: > GaborSzakacs wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) > > > to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my > > > designs any time soon. > > > > > REALLY! 1900 balls, and all of them have to solder perfectly or the chip > > has to come off and be re-balled! Arghhhh! I'd LOVE to know who is > > actually USING chips that expensive. Must be the military in those > > $500 Million airplanes. > > Jon if it does the job of an asic that would require a million dollar NRE and you only need 20 it's a bargain -LasseArticle: 156340
On 11/03/14 21:23, Jon Elson wrote: > GaborSzakacs wrote: > > >> >> A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) >> to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my >> designs any time soon. >> > REALLY! 1900 balls, and all of them have to solder perfectly or the chip > has to come off and be re-balled! Arghhhh! I'd LOVE to know who is > actually USING chips that expensive. Must be the military in those > $500 Million airplanes. I suspect the financial community as well. They will pay extraordinary money to shave milliseconds off transaction times. Yes, they do encode financial algorithms into FPGA hardware. One well known example of their ability to spend money is that one company spent $300m laying a transatlantic cable to reduce the RTT of 65ms by 6ms. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/8753784/The-300m-cable-that-will-save-traders-milliseconds.htmlArticle: 156341
Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: (snip) > I suspect the financial community as well. They will pay extraordinary > money to shave milliseconds off transaction times. Yes, they do encode > financial algorithms into FPGA hardware. > One well known example of their ability to spend money is that one > company spent $300m laying a transatlantic cable to reduce the > RTT of 65ms by 6ms. Must not have read "Wait: the art and science of delay." -- glenArticle: 156342
Den tirsdag den 11. marts 2014 23.18.47 UTC+1 skrev glen herrmannsfeldt: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > I suspect the financial community as well. They will pay extraordinary > > > money to shave milliseconds off transaction times. Yes, they do encode > > > financial algorithms into FPGA hardware. > > > > > One well known example of their ability to spend money is that one > > > company spent $300m laying a transatlantic cable to reduce the > > > RTT of 65ms by 6ms. > > > > Must not have read "Wait: the art and science of delay." > but for some reason they say that them making billions manipulating prices by moving numbers around milliseconds faster than everyone else is an essential service to society -LasseArticle: 156343
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:14:31 -0700 (PDT) langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > Den tirsdag den 11. marts 2014 23.18.47 UTC+1 skrev glen herrmannsfeldt: > > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > I suspect the financial community as well. They will pay extraordinary > > > > > money to shave milliseconds off transaction times. Yes, they do encode > > > > > financial algorithms into FPGA hardware. > > > > > > > > > One well known example of their ability to spend money is that one > > > > > company spent $300m laying a transatlantic cable to reduce the > > > > > RTT of 65ms by 6ms. > > > > > > > > Must not have read "Wait: the art and science of delay." > > > > but for some reason they say that them making billions manipulating > prices by moving numbers around milliseconds faster than everyone > else is an essential service to society > > -Lasse Financial markets are much like the colon; at some point there stops being an upside to increasing liquidity. -- Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.Article: 156344
On 3/11/2014 2:23 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > GaborSzakacs wrote: > > >> >> A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) >> to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my >> designs any time soon. >> > REALLY! 1900 balls, and all of them have to solder perfectly or the chip > has to come off and be re-balled! Arghhhh! I'd LOVE to know who is > actually USING chips that expensive. Must be the military in those > $500 Million airplanes. > > Jon ... can't meet SEU numbers in an airplane with /one/ of those. You'd need a couple! Rob.Article: 156345
langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: (snip, regarding financial timins) >> Must not have read "Wait: the art and science of delay." > but for some reason they say that them making billions manipulating > prices by moving numbers around milliseconds faster than everyone > else is an essential service to society You should read the book for the full details, but there was a group that moved the whole operation closer to New York, and then found that faster isn't always better. The whole story of the book is that faster isn't always better, and you should know when it might not be better. -- glenArticle: 156346
On 11/03/14 23:14, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > Den tirsdag den 11. marts 2014 23.18.47 UTC+1 skrev glen herrmannsfeldt: >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >>> I suspect the financial community as well. They will pay extraordinary >> >>> money to shave milliseconds off transaction times. Yes, they do encode >> >>> financial algorithms into FPGA hardware. >> >> >> >>> One well known example of their ability to spend money is that one >> >>> company spent $300m laying a transatlantic cable to reduce the >> >>> RTT of 65ms by 6ms. >> >> >> >> Must not have read "Wait: the art and science of delay." >> > > but for some reason they say that them making billions manipulating > prices by moving numbers around milliseconds faster than everyone > else is an essential service to society As I understand it, they say they are going to move billions - and then withdraw a few ms later. This allows them to gauge the way the market is going. Or something.Article: 156347
Jon Elson wrote: > GaborSzakacs wrote: > > >> A quick DigiKey search showed a range of $2,583.75 (XC7VX330T-1FFG1157C) >> to $39,452.40 (XC7V2000T-G2FLG1925E). These won't end up in any of my >> designs any time soon. >> > REALLY! 1900 balls, and all of them have to solder perfectly or the chip > has to come off and be re-balled! Arghhhh! I'd LOVE to know who is > actually USING chips that expensive. Must be the military in those > $500 Million airplanes. > > Jon Xilinx's traditional market for high-end parts has been ASIC hardware co-simulation / prototyping. Maybe as a part of that $1M NRE it's not such a big hit to buy one or two of these. As for the number of balls, I haven't seen any indication that soldering failure rates go up in relation to the number of balls in a BGA, at least with the contract manufacturers that we use. And the re-balling expense for these would still be a lot less that buying a new part... -- GaborArticle: 156348
alb <al.basili@gmail.com> wrote: > I was wondering if there's any one out there working with a cloud design > flow which is tool agnostic. [] uhm, considering the amount of replies to this thread I have only two possibilities to choose from: 1. nobody is using such paradigm in this community 2. nobody using this paradigm is willing to share it with this community In both cases I'm out of luck and guess that if I ever want to go down this path I'll be doing it on my own.Article: 156349
Hi everyone, I'm trying to understand how to improve our verification flow. As of now we have a great deal of unit level testbenches which are trying to make sure the unit is behaving correctly. Now, if I make a fair analysis of my above statement, I'm already doomed! What does it mean 'behaving correctly'? In our workflow we have an FPGA spec which is coming from /above/ and we have a verification matrix to define which verification method we apply for each requirement. The problem is: we do not have a unit level spec so how can we make sure the unit is correctly behaving? Moreover at the system level there are a certain number of scenarios which do not apply at unit level and viceversa, but the bottom line is that the system as a whole should be fully verified. Should I decline each system level requirement to a unit level one? That would be nearly as long as writing RTL code using only fabric's privitives. Another issue is the coverage collection. Imagine I have my set of units all individually tested, all of them happily reporting some sort of functional coverage. First of all I do not now why the heck we collect coverage if we do not have a spec to compare it with and second of all how shall I collect coverage of a specific unit when it's integrated in the overall system? Does it make any sense to do it? A purely system level approach might have too poor observability/controllability at unit level and would not be efficient to spot unit level problems, especially in the very beginning of the coding effort, where the debug cycle is very fast. But if I start to write unit level testbenches it would be unlikely that I will reuse those benches at system level. As you may have noticed I'm a bit confused and any pointer would be greatly appreciated. Al -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z