Talk:Plesiochronous digital hierarchy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Unsorted text

whatis E1,E2

E1= 2Mbits port

E1 and E2 are names for transport streams E1 having a bandwidth of 2.048Mbps and E2 of 8.448Mbps—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.174.71 (talk • contribs)

In "This is done by taking 1 bit from stream #1, followed by 1 bit from stream #2, ..." is it really 1 bit, not 8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.99.8 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is PDH - it uses bit interleaving. So 1 bit at a time, not 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.160.78 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic

Pardon my ignorance of computer science. This is in the article:

Similar techniques are used to combine four × 8 Mbit/s together, giving 34 Mbit/s. Four × 34 Mbit/s, gives 140. Four × 140 gives 565.

Is this some system of arithmetic differing from that which most of us know? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight amount of overhead ("stuffing") added to each level of the hierarchy to allow for differences in the timing of different tributary inputs. This makes the bitrate slightly higher than the combined total of the multiplexed streams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.160.78 (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHATS THE DIF-- PDH AND SDH

i want support you my question is what is the different between PDH AND SDH

REGARDS RAJU THAKUR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.210.114 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, they are completely different technologies! The most basic difference is that PDH is plesiochronous, that is, "almost synchronous", whereas SDH is synchronous. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not a question that can be answered simply; you need to do some research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.160.78 (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ref that seems to indicate they're the same or similar thing. -—Kvng 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comparison of SDH and PDH. Plesiosychronous does not refer to synchronization in your source (and the O'Reiley book doesn't distinguish despotic and mutual forms of synchronous clock distribution. In PDH, plesiosynchronous refers to the multiplexing hierarchy. For example, to multiplex T1 signals into T3 requires bit stuffing and justification of the T1 sources (which may have slightly different clocks), particularly where mutual clock synchronization is performed. Slips may occur. In SDH, the higher levels of the multiplexing hierarchy are precise multiples of the lower levels. No bit stuffing or justification is performed. No slips occur (just clock failures). So you see, PDH allows almost synchronous tributaries to higher multiplexing levels, whereas SDH allows only synchronous tributaries. SDH can carry PDH, but only by bit stuffing and justifying the PDH signal within the SDH payload. — Dgtsyb (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article unfinished?

It seems to me as if someone has not quite finished their writing, i. e. Multiplex levels: Uses Positive justification to adapt frequency differences Overheads: CRC Defects: LOS, LOF, AIS Information is sufficient... This looks somewhat chaotic. Noggo (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy → Plesiochronous digital hierarchy – Case error; not generally capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, uncontroversial. --87.79.231.4 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, the question is whether the topic is a proper noun. How it's capitalized in sources should not be the determining factor as different sources use different style. Most protocols are proper nouns e.g. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, Internet Group Management Protocol. Note that whatever we decide here should also be applied to Synchronous optical networking which currently has a lower-case title but title-case lead and Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy. -—Kvng 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying there are sources with a style of downcasing proper nouns? Can you show us one? I think we pretty much assumed the opposite in MOS:CAPS where we have Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should also fix Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy to lowercase. As for Synchronous optical networking, that term is sometimes used to refer to the SONET protocol, but I think it's not the official or proper name; similarly with SDH. See this book; or this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what I said was wrong. -—Kvng 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.