Slashdot Mirror
2.56 Tb/s Transmission Record
RalfM writes "2.56 terabits of data per second in new transmission record by Bell Labs, Lucent's research arm."
So this thing could transmit my entire mp3 collection in under a half second.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Good, and then you'll have to wait 4 hours for your HDD to write them ;-).
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Tera is a prefix meaning one trillion (10^12), in this case it refers to one trillion bits (not bytes).
What?
Not for one person, but for a million people, I could think of a lot of reasons for one.
What?
While I have to admit 2.56 Tb/s is darn impressive the article doesnt mention if this can be applied to currently existing fiber optic networks. After having invested millions in new fiber and equipment for my area I seriously doubt my provider (twc) would be willing to just jump up and make large (read as: expensive) modifications. Especially if our network is "just good enough". Advances like this are interesting but how long will it take to "filter down" to us consumers?
Maybee I can finaly get a good ping in quake now.
Hacker Media
So this thing could transmit my entire mp3 collection in under a half second.
/dev/null, so you may as well save the net bandwidth and use the mv command.
Sure, and unless you have a storage device that can accept data at that speed, the only place your MP3s are going is
being trite and obvious has never been harder...
sic transit gloria mundi
No, 'cause the LambdaXtreme unit used is unbelievably expensive, and you need at least 2 of them.
Also, you need EBDA single-mode fiber, which isn't the majority in the ground.
Soon, though.
Charles E. Hill
Core Network Engineer
Lucent Worldwide Services
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
So this thing could transmit my entire mp3 collection in under a half second.
Engineer wanted for creation of 2.56Tb/s DRM system. Must be able to scan for copyright flags in data stream and deny transfer permission.
No they're not. Grrrr...
Maxtor started the base 10 crap in the mid 90's so stupid users could figure out how much space they had.
64kbps, 128 kbps, 384, 768, 1.54 Mbps...
And file sizes are STILL in traditional base 2. When someone says a file is 1KB, it's 1024 bytes, not 1000 bytes.
64KB of RAM is 65536 bytes, not 64000.
Just because someone bastardized the numbers for idiots doesn't mean it's actually propagated into reality.
Packaging and marketing doesn't change the guts, it just makes it easier for the average joe to feel like s/he knows what s/he's talking about, even if they don't.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
And in related news:
These same engineers hope to set a new 1.00 Tb/s reception record later today.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
okay so now you put up the challenge I had to go looking.. damn you
1/2 serious 1/2 not so serious post here...
Lets imagine the population of new york which is a tad less then 19 million. now lets give each of them a phone.
given the assumption that no more then 35% are on their phones at any given peak time we have 6.65 million pone conversations going on. Now lets assume that of these phone calls no more then 40% are inter-city phone calls which would use this type of pipe.
2.66 million calls now.
Now lets say that compression algorithims bring the average phone call bandwidth to say 20Kbit/s
quick math leads that to 53 Gb/s so all of New York uses for voice communications on a high end is 2% of this pipe.
so now we have 98% left to fill
Ive heard that an *average* (this puts us in the minority) computer user on an internet connection will use 40kbit on average during a session with the net. and with that number on average there could be 64 million people using that line (which seems high to me) but I can't find any statistics to backup that 40kbit estimate at this time.
So here of course are the lame responses:
one script kiddie with an Outlook "add-on", a remote exploit he downloaded somewhere and to much time on his hands
One large dorm full of p2p, porn, warez hungry students
one slashdot reader who wants to test to see if this article is true.
Clustering. Currently the bottleneck in clusters is network connections, simply put most computers you will cluster are faster than 100Mbps and 1Gbps networks. THe faster you move the data between systems, the faster your cluster- High end supercomputers do this, maximizing transmission speed between the individual porcessors as much or more than the CPU speed.
Lets say you take 4 Quad PIV 1Ghz systems, build two Beowulf clusters. The one with Tb/sec networking between the systems will be faster, noticeably, than the one with Gb/s networking.
This will also push things like Gb/s networking from its heights down to the average person. I don't see the average person having a Tb/s network anytime soon, but Gb/s networking will probably be more common within a couple of years. That will probably be the biggest benefit of this advance, the people that absolutely need the fastest networks go to Tb/s, and those that only WANT a fast network now get Gb/s
Read this:
So what's that mean? An ISDN 64Kbps B channel is, in fact, 64000 bits per second. A typical 115.2Kbps maximum rate on a PC's serial port is 115200 bits per second.
Hard drives are also measured using SI definitions. The power-of-2 definitions come from memory. Memory devices often inherently have power-of-two sizes, since the n address bits going into a memory provide 2^n addressable cells. Hard drives have no inherent reason to be a power-of-2 size so SI units make much more sense.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.