HP16702A Upgrade to 100BaseT? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: mookiedog
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 20, 2025, 07:51:29 pm
content: I tried googling this, but was unable to find an answer. Apologies if I did a suboptimal search.Is it possible to upgrade an HP16702A to use the 100BaseT Ethernet module as used in the 16702B?

author: gslick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2025, 06:26:40 am
content: Possible? If someone has the necessary PCB rework skills it might be possible.The 16700B/16702B 100BT interface is on a daughter board that just plugs into an existing connector on top of the main CPU board and just lays down on top of the main CPU board. One issue though is that the RJ45 jack on the 100BT daughter board is located in the same volume where the 10BT RJ45 jack is located on the 16700A/16702A main CPU board. At a minimum, the 10BT RJ45 jack on the 16700A/16702A main CPU board would have to be depopulated in order for the RJ45 jack of the 100BT daughter board to fit in the same space.There are also changes between the PCI board that plugs into the main CPU board. The 10B2 BNC connector and transceiver are populated on the 16700A/16702A PCI board and not populated on the 16700B/16702B version of the PCI board. Maybe there would be no issue leaving those 10B2 parts populated on the 16700A/16702A PCI board while adding the 100BT daughter board.

author: mookiedog
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 21, 2025, 02:28:34 pm
content: Not the simplest upgrade, I guess.Would you happen to know the part number for that daughterboard?

author: coromonadalix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2025, 03:43:23 pm
content: https://www.ebay.com/itm/127121773070?https://www.ebay.com/itm/126399833525?like theses cards ? you may be able to spot the card numbercard only not sure of the speedhttps://www.ebay.com/itm/125862603232?https://www.ebay.com/itm/156101744997?

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2025, 05:44:57 pm
content: Is the general purpose for more speed or better connectivity?There are still 10BaseT capable switches, but even with 100BaseT internal connection it's still 10BaseT intended software feeding it.

author: mookiedog
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 21, 2025, 08:32:09 pm
content: Thanks for that! I believe I have the 100BaseT part number now: 16700-66508I was hoping that a 100baseT connection would result in a more responsive remote operation scenario. The 10baseT responsiveness is not terrible, but it's not fast. If there was a relatively easy upgrade, I would be interested.Switching is not an issue: the analyzer connects happily to my Netgear 2.5G PoE switch and the resulting 10 megabit link works fine. Just slow. Like slower than USB 1.0That said, you are correct that the analyzer software might not be able to drive a 100 megabit connection to its limits. On the other hand, if software truly was the limiting case, then why would HP have bothered to upgrade the interface? So I figure that a 100meg interface would have to be faster than a 10 meg interface, but maybe not 10 times as fast.

author: gslick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 12:09:05 am
content: Yes, 16700-66508 is the correct part number for the 16700B / 16702B LAN board.https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/9018-41173/service-manuals/9018-41173.pdfAgilent Technologies 16700B/16702B Logic Analysis System and 16701B Expansion Frame Service GuidePublication number 16700-97015First edition, July 2000Page 7-4, Exploded view of the 16700B/16702BPage 7-5, 16700B/16702B Replaceable PartsThere isn't much on the 16700B / 16702B LAN board other than the Intel 21143 PCI 10/100 Ethernet LAN Controller. That is a standard PCI interface device which is wired directly to the 100-pin AMP/TE CHAMP .050 Series connector on the LAN board.Compatible 100-pin connectors:https://www.te.com/en/product-1-1734101-0.htmlhttps://www.te.com/en/product-1-1734100-0.htmlThat connector carries an electrically standard PCI bus, which is downstream of the HP Dino GSC to PCI bridge on the main CPU board.https://www.openpa.net/pa-risc_chipsets_uturn.html#dinoMore info on that PCI bus here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reversing-a-pci-interface-without-blowing-up-my-la/10Mb/s vs 100Mb/s Ethernet might not make too much difference in remote connection responsiveness. The network traffic might not be too large for a X Window System server or VNC server remote user interface connection.One thing where it might make a difference is for file transfers. For example, it would be easy to capture a 2M deep state trace where the text representation of all of the channels across a single line in the state listing could be 80 characters wide, or more. Saving that state listing to a file on disk could result in a text file that is 200MB or more. If you want to transfer that file to a PC for offline analysis over a 10Mb/s Ethernet connection, that might take at least 4 minutes, while it might be under a minute with a 100Mb/s Ethernet connection. I suppose it would be interesting to test that scenario on a 16700 with the original 10Mb/s interface vs the 100Mb/s interface and get some concrete numbers. You'll never exceed 5MB/s transferring from the 16700 disk as the SCSI controller in the LASI chipset on the main CPU board is limited to a maximum synchronous transfer rate of 5MB/s.https://www.openpa.net/pa-risc_chipsets_lasi.html

author: gslick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 12:23:11 am
content: As far as trying to upgrade the LAN interface on a 16700A / 16702A to a 16700B / 16702B version, if you have to go out and buy a 16700-66508 16700B / 16702B LAN board and then try to get it to work on a 16700A / 16702A, maybe it would be more cost effective to just buy a whole 16700B / 16702B and sell your 16700A / 16702A.For example, if you happened to be in the CA Bay Area and could do a local pickup and not pay for shipping, here is a complete 16702B listed for $200, or make offer:https://www.ebay.com/itm/297011136369What's the best deal you can find for just a 16700-66508 LAN board by itself?

author: mookiedog
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 10:48:55 pm
content: I think you are totally correct: if it turns out that the 10 megabit link is an annoying limit, the best solution is to just get a 16702B. It would save time and money, and would be known to work from the get-go. The only 100M board I saw on ebay was $110, and as you point out, whole systems are hardly more expensive.Thanks for all the help!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 12:07:47 am
content: Quote from: mookiedog on May 21, 2025, 08:32:09 pmI’d be quite surprised if the network link were the bottleneck.Quote from: mookiedog on May 21, 2025, 08:32:09 pmImproved compatibility with customer networks? Parts availability of the network interface chip? Bragging rights? Netbooting for factory testing?

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 11:24:55 am
content: Putting in a plain 10M is a bit odd from HP, it's a very old thing and 10/100 was already a norm.Maybe 100M wasn't a standard enough.Is the remote operation a remote desktop stylish?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 04:57:01 pm
content: Quote from: m k on May 23, 2025, 11:24:55 amIn 1998, when it came out (according to the printing date of the first manual), 10/100 ethernet interfaces were not in any way widespread. A handful of computers had it (notably the original 1998 iMac), but the vast majority didn’t. It’s like 10 gigabit Ethernet is today: available as an option in a computer, but very rarely included by default.HP likely began work on the product years before it went on the market, so when they worked on it, 100Mbps Ethernet was nothing anyone would have given any thought to.It wasn’t until a few years into the 2000s that 10/100 ports became the default.

author: kmoonwalker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 05:11:43 pm
content: Quote from: mookiedog on May 22, 2025, 10:48:55 pmjust put a switch with memory buffer not a joke as transfer negotiating buffer inbetween in case you need it but regardng the scope itself I do not think that there is anything to gain in terms of GUI responsiveness that is worth the time, money and effort to make this happen :/

author: gslick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 10:12:12 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on May 23, 2025, 04:57:01 pmYes, it's not like the HP 16600/16700 series logic analyzers were designed completely from scratch with no past history, sparing no expense to design with the very latest technology.Some of the 16600/16700 series design must go back to the 16505A, which was really just an HP 712/60 PA-RISC workstation running a special purpose logic analyzer application on top of HP-UX, which connected to an HP 16500B / 16500C through the SCSI interface for remote control. The version 1.x 16600/16700 series logic analyzer application is very similar in appearance to the 16505A version, and might even share some code, or at least some of the overall software design.To build an PA-RISC HP-UX main CPU board for the 16600/16700 series, it appears they just reused an already existing design from the HP E4406A VSA transmitter tester. That product probably had no real need for 100M Ethernet, and the 10M Ethernet interface basically came for free with the PA-RISC LASI chipset it used. The 16600/16700 series main CPU board appears to be exactly the same as the E4406A main CPU board, and has some E4406A part number markings. It even still has the GPIB controller and bus transceivers and the 24-pin connector populated, just no external GPIB connector plugged into the 24-pin CPU board connector as the E4406A does.

author: aeg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 11:44:02 pm
content: It might be interesting to hack a GPIB connector into the 16700 and have it control other instruments!

author: gslick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2025, 01:04:15 am
content: Quote from: aeg on May 23, 2025, 11:44:02 pmHP E2091F is the SICL IO Libraries for HP-UX 10.20http://www.bitsavers.org/test_equipment/hp/vxi/E2091F_HPUX10.20_IO_Libraries/That includes support for the E1497A / E1498A V743 VXI controller. Those use a PA-7100LC CPU vs. the PA-7300LC CPU of the 16600/16700 series. I think I have a V743 VXI controller that I should open up and see what it uses for a GPIB controller. If it uses the same 9914 chip that the 16600/16700 series CPU board uses, maybe the E2091F SICL IO Libraries could be loaded and work on the 16600/16700 series CPU board.EDIT: I just pulled the cover off of my E1497A / E1498A V743 VXI controller. It does use the same TI MP9914FNL GPIB controller chip that is on the 16600/16700 series CPU board. Sometime I'll have to try loading the E2091F SICL IO Libraries on a 16700 and see what happens.