Slashdot Mirror
Net Speed Record Smashed
BrianWCarver writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists have set a new internet speed record by transferring 6.7 gigabytes of data (the equivalent of 4 hours of DVD-quality movies) across 10,978 kilometres (6,800 miles), from Sunnyvale in the US to Amsterdam in Holland, in less than one minute. Average speed: more than 923 megabits per second, or more than 3,500 times faster than a typical home broadband connection. The data was sent across the Internet2 network. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Slac) Computer Services participated in the record-breaking event. Slac has an interest in such high-speed transfers as they have accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day."
So how many LOC's/hour is that?! ;)
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
If I have anything to do with it my broadband will NOT be 3500 times slower.....I'm moving to amsterdam!
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
I'd like to know what media they used that could write that much information in 1 minute.
But how many Libraries of Congress (LOCs) is that ? How can anyone quote GB without equivalent LOCs ?
charmer
You just got to love how all internet trafic of today is measured in movies. ;)
It doesn't mention in the article. I remember seeing a couple of times that some Debian stuff was sent for these types of experiements.
But in the absence of real evidence, I prefer to make things up.
They sent pr0n.
ahh, it actually was 4 hours of DVD-quality movies...
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
The best part is since internet2 is a private network, no mainstream users are going to benefit from it's incredible speed. Hooray!
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
So when do companys start providing services like this to the public? It doesn't matter, where I live I'll have to wait an extra 10 years to get it... what was it anyways, fiber-optics?
They transferred all this data over Internet2 and the writeup says "...set a new internet speed record ...". Isn't that cheating?
That's like saying "Our new car can go 6000 mph! (on a conveyer belt moving at 5950 mph).
When this will be useful for us, the average people? We are still struggling with pityful, expensive "broadband". They can play all they want trying to make things faster, so call me when they make what we already have cheaper and efficient.
How can we be sure those dudes in Amsterdam weren't just stoned and imagining things?
Tommorrows headline on slashdot?
If they are using that much bandwidth they must be pirating something.
What the article doesn't mention (and it's a virtual clone of SLAC's press release) is this is part of the Internet2 Land Speed Record competition. SLAC (working with a few others) holds both the previous record and the new one.
Now spam expands to fill your pipe.
Well, I guess the're not running experiments every day. Otherwise, when will they find the time / cpu power needed to parse all of this ? Are we goingg to see a SLAC-athon@HOME any time soon ?
All generalizations are false, including this one...
If SLAC is generating a terabyte of information a day, 900+ bits/second isn't nearly fast enough to transfer it.
(Yes, I know that only parts of that data are likely to be useful enough to transfer, but it does suggest that there is still quite a ways to go in the quest for bandwidth.)
POS over OC192 is way faster. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/pub lic/nov99/nicholl_1_1199.pdf
And Lucent is already working even faster Sonet technologies that will blow OC192 out of the water.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Will be paying for the Bandwidth charge for that little load ?
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
It seems that the new Internet2 backbone will go into full-scale operation at about the same time everybody converts to IPv6. Hell, we'll all have Fast Ethernet to the curb by then.
During its research, Slac has accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day.
Wow! I hope they never allow that information to be downloaded on the Internet. If they do, then Google will quickly become the largest database in the world ;-).
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
For those wondering what the hell SLAC is, it stands for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
Apparently, the SLAC library (SPIRES) stores pretty much every particle physics experiment data and write-up ever.
Here is the pretty picture and their about page.
Excuse me but surly you'd more likely download a DVD from Holland, rather than upload. What kind of student use this bandwidth (O yeah, ones that sell it to spammers, duh). So there basing the internet2 upon a bunch of ideal's and lots of raw power/speed - sounds like a good place to start. Role on FTL routers -- Just in time to make it all obsolete.
Looks like we have come a long way since this and this.
After Announcing the Internet's fastest transfer rates, Stanford Geeks have also announced the fastest popup from X-10, .098 Seconds from browser open, to total popup hell!
1 TB per day? I wonder what DB software packages they're using to manage all that data.
:)
Anybody know?
<SARCASM>
Wait, wait! It's MS SQL Server, of *course*!
</SARCASM>
"(the equivalent of 4 hours of DVD-quality movies)"
/. made me into a karma whore.
I thought these guys were supposed to be using it for "legitimate research," not sharing their ripped dvd collections.
You know, I really wouldn't mind if they gave me internet2 access too, you know.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Not with a 2 second lag, he wouldnt.
Q3 doesnt use much bandwidth, it's the low pings that kill ya.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
but what is the latency on something like that? I could fill a jet with thousands of DVDs and crush that record, but my latency would suck.
Also, I know the article doesn't suggest this but I have seen news about surgeries performed over the internet. How can a Doctor perform surgery over a network with high latency?
-- My HARDWARE, My CHOICE.
I've said that no transmission method of bandwidth will ever exceed, in my lifetime, the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes.
"A simple calculation will make this point clear. An industry standard 8mm video tape (e.g. Exabyte) can hold 7 Gigabytes. a box 50x50x50 cm can hold about 1000 of these tapes, for a total apacity of 7000 Gigabytes. A box of tapes can be delivered anywhere in the US in 24 hours by Federal Express and other companies. The ffective bandwidth of this transmission is 56,000 gigabits/86400 sec or 648 Gbps, which is 1000 times better than the high-speed version of ATM (622 Mbps). If the destination if only an hour away by road, the bandwidth is increased to over 15Gbps."
-- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks, Third Edition"
Would just create a mess like the regular internet. We need to get behind the public government utility companies like gas,water,electric to bring us the future networks. I am telling you all right now , the private sector is about ripping people off and not delivering new technology like internet 2.
I hope this would finally get rid of counter strike lag!
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
OC192 Re-submitting a story from 5 hours ago is one thing, but from 4 years ago ? :P
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Sweet, now my order for certain items *cough* that they sell *cough* in Amsterdam *cough* will get there that much faster.
Namaste
I just assumed it was either porn or spam, although since its at Stanford University, I am sure the MPAA/RIAA will have some thoughts on it...
Surely isn't it the other way around? ;)
Balmer did the KLOC thingy ... i know i was there and heard him say it ...
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
Namaste
That's where my DVD collection went!
--My other sig is a ferrari.
It's a lot of data, and it's a fast network. But it's manageable as local I/O.
In special effects work each frame is handled as an uncompressed TIFF at high res (I can't remember the exact bit depth and res). Previewing sequences means streaming these TIFF images. Adds up to about 400MB/s sustained (that's byte, not bit). HD video at 720p has similar requirements -- don't forget, you musn't drop any frames, and it has to arrive on time.
I work in such an effects shop, and we've had several demos of HD-capable digital disk recorders over the last few months. Two out of three were based on Linux, and worked well (the other was custom). Twin Ultra 320 channels with software RAID across the two channels, XFS as a filesystem. They each did the job with a 2U enclosure full of largely stock components (except the video I/O board) -- and that's 3.2GBit/s I/O to the drive array.
Sending from a places called Sunnyvale how could you not? Hell it could well have been Sunnydale going on past /. editorial proof reading excellence.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
256,000 spam emails (or DMCA violation notices, if you prefer)
160,000 banner ads
85333 pages serves of Are You Hot or Not
3,200 copies of Gator
1,066 2 minute average quality porn clips
10 pirated copies of Windows XP home edition
I can't wait for Internet2!
It's called 'Objectivity'. Read about it at objectivity.com.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
...but what's the latency?
So assuming that, ahem, the growth is linear (it won't be) and has been keeping at it for there years (probably more), that's 1.1 _____bytes! so, erm, when do we expect the database to achieve consiousness again?
And, dosn't the gigabit speed seems kinda trivial, compared to the massive amounts of data stored there?
Heck how do they manage corrupt bits? the chance of random bits failing here and there is just too high to ignore, no?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Does this mean that the old adage (that driving across the Atlantic in an old beat-up VolksWagen kombi filled with CD's provides greater bandwidth than the internet does), is no longer true?
"Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." - Roald Dahl
I'm still looking for evidence that we're decreasing the typical latency to get important info (like the fact that I just shot my sniper rifle at some counter-terrorist) across the globe.
Imagine, international internet gaming with low latencies all 'round. Sounds like a pipe dream.
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
Average speed: more than 923 megabits per second, or more than 3,500 times faster than a typical home broadband connection.
That'd be pretty sucky broadband, if you ask me. 262kb? I mean, it's better than dial-up certainly, but...
Not to brag, but I typically get better than 2.4Mb, if I'm downloading from a good site. That makes it only 385 times faster than me. :)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
3,500 times faster than a typical home broadband connection.
Yummy,porn 3500 times faster!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
...what's the latency/ping times like on Internet2?
I'm more interested in the database, has anyone been able to dig up more information about this thing?
I know they use Objectivity/DB:
http://www.objectivity.com/
But I would like to find out what kind of hardware they employ.
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
1.1 ____ bytes = 1.1*(2^50) = 1238489897526886 bytes
Today's record was about 59.5 seconds for 6.7GB, so rounding off to 6.7GB/min: 7194070221 bytes / minute (roughly)
that would take 172154.27 minutes to get everything out on this fat pipe
equating to about 119.55 days, or roughly 4 monthes. That's keeping at the maximum record set today all day everyday for that duration.
Ouch...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
6.7 gigs? Ah! Now we know where that Longhorn beta was leaked.
who wouldn't love 7 gigs of RAM disk goodness ;)
..that's not even a Gigabit... ;)
it is not Nordrhein-Westfalen, it is Germany, it is not Bordeaux, it is France, it is not Georgia, it is the USA, it is not etc etc, it is not Holland, it is the Netherlands.
When BBC says it, the world goes woot!
When Wired says it almost a month ago, no one says boo.
Or is this a duplicate and I missed it last time around.
Either way, WOOT!
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
In a joint press conference, Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti have announced that the MPAA and the RIAA will sue the designers and contructors of Internet2 for creating a network so fast that it will certainly create havoc in the movie and music industries.
"You can copy all of the Godfather movies in milliseconds!" Valenti shouted, slamming his fist upon the podium. "We're going to take THIS to the mattresses! To the MATTRESSES!"
Rosen added, somewhat more sedately, that the a user could log into an Internet2 account and download the "greatest hits library of Hansen" in less than five minutes. Rosen refused to comment when a reporter asked her how Internet2 was any different, that similar acts of piracy could be accomplished today using only a dialup modem.
you just gave me an idea for a Q3 skin...
Now all I'll need is the bandwidth...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I'm wondering if they did this using TCP, and if so, how the test was set up.
Eg is this the peak rate that it was able to sustain for a one minute period once the transfer was already running, or did it take one minute from start to finish. It's an important distinction with TCP because slow start needs several round trips in order to open the window large enough to get max througput over such a high speed, long distance link.
Also how on earth did they handle packet loss? Getting the max throughput out of a high-latency link with just a single TCP connection is not easy.
...It's like a beowulf cluster of porn per second!
Given that speed = distance / time, and the speed of light is finite, just increase the distance.
Calling Soviet Russia...
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
The RIAA has been granted an injunction, banning this new piracy threat. "The potential for theft is enormous!", grunted one member, before returning it's snout to the trough...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Let's see your linux distro try to do this :)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
" they have accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day."
what kind of information does this contain? I cant imagine a database that big.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
Article here: http://chronicle.com/free/v45/i47/47a02101.htm.
I don't know what I'm going to do after I leave college. No more Internet 2?!?! I'm going to actually have to wait to download linux iso files? And VNC and X forwarding will be slow? Man, I should stay and get my masters.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
That means you could transfer an entire Kevin Costner film in under 30 minutes!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Interesting, but you neglect to calculate the time required to get the data onto the tapes and then backk off the tapes. I would bet if you add that time to the bandwidth calculation, you would lose a great deal of the benefit.
He missed a . that would be .648 Gbps
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
not as fast as strapping 1000 iPod's to 1000 monkeys and catapaulting them across the Mississippi River.
Duuuuuuude! Now that's a BIG PIPE!!
You've just gotta love those guys in Amsterdam...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Well duh, you'd just have to send it backwards across the international date line and then locally queue it! I'll tell you, engineers have no imagination these days....
Or you could use the sun to slingshot the information back in time.
Or you could fly in circles around the earth, backwards, with the information in hand.
Or ditch the wires altogether and get a Delorean with a removable hard drive!
Damn....
I knew I'm 3500 times slower....
However, now it seems that the hogshead has now been standardized to 62.99 (63) gallons. (and thank God, I was tired of doing all the conversions at the grocery store. "Lets see...1 English hogshead...is....uh....damnit.") A rod is 16.5 feet.
I don't even know if battleships have fuel economy which is THAT bad.
However, Simpsons quote appreciated. Just something to chew on.
Doc
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
a stationwagon cannot be delivered anywehere in the US in 24hrs
how long would a stationwagon take to drive 6800 miles? well...assuming an average speed of 75mph, no stopping: 90.66 hours. The combined luggage and passenger capacity of a Ford Taurus is 143 cubic feet or about 4.2 million cubic centimeters. Using the provided rate of 1000 tapes in a 50x50x50 cm^3 box implies that a Ford Taurus could hold about 33,600 tapes, or 235200 Gigabytes. Over a 90.66 hour period, that equates to 5903 megabits per second. This Internet2 record is 923 megabits per second. We are getting in the right ball park here....I'd give up on your claim as there's a very good chance it could happen.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
"...but the latency sucks."
Not only that, but in the case of, ahem, packet collisions, your retry rate is a real killer with that station wagon.
I forget what 8 was for.
You have to write that 7000 Gb to 1000 tapes first. That will take MUCH longer than 24 hours, since you are limited to the speed of your SCSI bus and the speed and capacity of your tape robot.
Edith Keeler Must Die
"a stationwagon cannot be delivered anywehere in the US in 24hrs"
Tsk tsk, you're too short-sighted. I can put a station wagon anywhere in the world in under 24 hours if I'm given a big-ass parachute and a C-130 to drop the station wagon out of the back of.
Better yet, put the station wagon on top of a sub-orbital rocket. Now that's bandwidth!
The internet itself is a bunch of private networks all hooked together. Internet2 is no different.
Yeah, okay, you can't go out and buy dialup on it.. but that's not what The Internet was started as either.
I'll see your station wagon full of backup tapes, and raise you an Antonov cargo plane full of DVDs.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
" Sure, you can get it there, but once it's there you have to start the restore process..."
That's what the barrels of psycho geese are for, assuming Taco would lease them out...
We're one step closer to being able to play Duke Nukem Forever online... Oh wait... nevermind.
"Hollowpoints: When you care enough to send the very best."
Why do people constantly talk about n-DVD-hours worth of data? Particularly since they are generally referring to DVD-Video, not DVD data.
Comparing the transfer capacity to some number of hours of DVD video material is pointless, since the bitrate is not the same from one title to the next.
For example, 6.7 gigabytes of data is actually only 6.23 gibibytes. A video stream would have to be encoded at around 3.5 mebibits/second to fit four hours of material in 6.23GiB. I wouldn't call that a quality video stream. And that's WITHOUT an audio sub-stream! You're not far away from Super VCD world at this bit rate.
Now, using a more reasonable average bitrate of, say, at least 4.5 mebibits would mean that the 6.23 gibibytes of data would only hold about 3 hours of "DVD-Video quality material".
Which brings us back to my point. Using DVD Video as a measure of data capacity is pointless, since there is no single data rate used for DVD Video.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
"Slac has an interest in such high-speed transfers as they have accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day."
Read: GET ACCESS TO OVER 53,000,000,000,000 EMAIL ADDRESSES! ONLY $99 A MONTH!
I could be wrong but I work for WorldCom (still hanging in there) and honestly, their backbone is pretty bad ass... I brought up an IP Network map and we have all sorts of OC-192s running all over that run at somewhere near 10Gb/s (About 1.xxx GB/s which could do a DVD in 6 seconds) I think the 6-Bone is pretty cool but couldn't you just plug a computer in with some some Gigabit ethernet controllers bonded together and do this to say a huge ramdrive or somethig stupid. Unless maybe this was meant to showcase the computer hardware more than the network? A gigabit doesn't impress me that much, or perhaps maybe no one has done it before...
As far as "backbone that's not AT&T/QWest/etc" goes, actually the fiber level of things is using pretty much the Usual Suspects except maybe for local access. The routers are part of Internet2, as opposed to being part of those carriers internet backbones. I don't know if the Internet2 universities are managing the routers themselves our outsourcing that to their backbone fiber providers.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
you're still limited to the leg of the transmission with the least bandwidth. Unless every major network upgrades and all bugs are worked out, it's not going to make a big impact.
This is probably the first valid Beowulf post in about 2 years...
If you have a master node acting as round-robbin server, you could have hundreds of machines behind it. Each of those, in turn, could be the master node of a large Beowulf cluster.
Or just picture your ISP's core switch. It is transfering the data for thousands of users. That data is being read and written, just not by one computer...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
TCP in particular - the standard window sizes have a maximum of 64KB, which means that a single TCP session can't run a 10,000km pipe very fast - speed-of-light-in-fiber latencies are about 60ms one way, so do the math on how long it takes for 64KB of window to get ackknowledgements. Either you have to modify TCP's window sizes, or use multiple TCP sessions, or use UDP with some kind of reliable-transfer application built over top of it instead of TCP.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This is interesting, I'll admit, but I've become more concerned with reducing usage than increasing bandwidth. Okay, this may be useful for backbones (and if you want to transmit their database. a TB a day? Wow!) but why are we trading movies over long distances anyway? I don't want a ridgid, heavily-regulated Internet, but it annoys me that we haven't gotten organised well enough to manage local caching of movies and music properly.
I seem to recall that 80%+ of college incoming/outgoing transfers are often music/movies. If these schools could just keep a repository on the campus intranet rather than upping their pipe they and the rest of the Internet would benefit. But it's illegal so they can't. Regardless of whether I agree with the MPAA/RIAA, I can understand their opposing this, but coming up with a way of dealing with this problem should be our first priority, not building a bigger pipe.
AOL, I beleive, is creating a music-sharing type service. If they do it right, their bandwidth costs will help pay for the losses they claim sharing causes. (Must be nice for them, having the largest ISP, cable provider, major labels, and movie producers all in one company.) I guess I should read up on that.
That makes the average broadband speed about 256Kbps. Most broadband links in the UK are 500, 512 or 600Kbps (depending on your provider / technology), and speeds of 1-3Mbps are becomming more common now (my 1Mbit connection is better value than the 600Kbps connection I was on a few months back, and prices keep falling).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, the more modern version of the old saw, a case of 250GB hard disks is 5TB, and the data could be gotten off them very quickly.
I used something similar to this method to send a TB of data to our corporate HQ. They needed a new NAS server anyway, so I preloaded it with the data we needed to get up there too. It would have taken months to transfer over the WAN.
When the enourmous transfer was detected by AOL's server, it was determined to consist entirely of SPAM, 1 billion SPAM emails to be exact.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
That means it will now only take me 3 hours to get Microsoft security updates. :)
In this world turning grey, strikes a chord when I say, there is black, there is white, there is wrong,there is right
A sack full of 27 200GB hard disks (or 1200 DVD-Rs) sent on a twelve-hour flight would also equal the claimed 1 Gbit/sec transmission rate... A couple cargo pallets of hard disks would blow it away :).
:(
The ping time would be about 43200000ms though
For comparison, the TeraGrid backplane, running between hubs in Los Angeles and Chicago, is supposed to have a capacity of 40 Gb/s. No speed records yet; they're just sending the first test packets.
That's about 3000 kilometers. Assuming lightspeed transmission, there could theoretically be something like 40 or 50 megabytes of data at a time in transit.
not only that, ca*net3 has been operational since 1998. ca*net4 is already in operation and is many times faster.
What are the benefits of this breakthrough, to us? Will we be able to send files at several hundred megs a second sometime in the near future, and if so, when and how? I only ask because my cable connection just isn't fast enough for me :(
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
The ping is not that great. Assuming a turnaround time of 0s and lightspeed communication, the ping would take: 2*10,978Km/c = .073186s or around 73ms
That is clearly unacceptable. I DEMAND BETTER.
Hoch
2*31*37*263
I did post this story yesterday, but it got rejected! grrr.
How quickly will that fill up 300gb of of hard disk space!
"Pushing little children, with their fully automatics, they like to push the weak around"
Yeah, but the packet loss rate is a little high for my tastes.
-Fzz
One problem is that your transfer method will degrad over distance. Even the fasted van will not get the data where it has to go in the time it will get there on the Internet (or Internet2, to be picky). Assuming the Internet latency and the vans speed are constant, for any distance, there will be a data capacity for the van (i.e. amount of data stored, i.e. number of backup tapes) such that if the van travels with that amount, upon arrival, both Internet transfer and van transfer would reflect the same amount of data. Any distance greater than that (unless the van's speed is greater than that of the data transmission speed) will show a degradation in the van's performance. That being said... keep in mind that data transfer is not only used to deliver static information. Much 'talk' that goes on with data is dynamic. For a simple example, think of a file request and delivery. The van must first travel across the country with the request. This will take the same amount of time as if it were transfering 100TB of data. This request is negligable on the Internet. So, the total transaction (request and response) will take twice as long as the original described transmission. The Internet transaction was unaffected. Now try this logic with some kind of real time system. As funny as this all sounds, there is still much to be said for good old fasioned sneaker net.
--Better yet, put the station wagon on top of a sub-orbital rocket. Now that's bandwidth!
Bandwidth doesnt count when the 'bits' are scattered over 10000 cubic kilometres.
So what's with this Internet 2?
People keep talking about this creatively named network and how fast it is.
Here's my question (please forgive or mod me down for this one, but I figure this is by far the best place to ask AND it's on topic)
What's the big deal? is this network using a different protocol, does it have BIG FAT network links causing it to be fast? why the big excitement over it? - I have no doubt you could acheive the same thing on the "internet 1" so to speak with a big enough link (s) ? right.
Is it a fibre only network, or it uses ip v6, or it has strong servings of beefcake? - what's the deal for the layman please.
Internet 2, why the fap?
Wonder how much DDOS it can take?
It's a joke. Thanks.
(sig on loan to Smithsonian)
How fast the slack website was? Inspite of being /.ed
The story mentioned that SLAC has the biggest known database in the world - what's in this database and are there any pages about it?
> I've said that no transmission method of bandwidth will ever exceed, in my lifetime, the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes
You forgot to include distance.
Your truck runs at 100 km an hour. So 7000GB * 100km/h = 700TBkm/h
Now lets compare to the internet2. 6.7GB traveled at 11000km/s (40.000.000km/h). So the data traveled at 265PBkm/h!!
Data transport was 400 times more effective when transported over internet2, then per truck!
The same could be said for "token rings" as well...
"I'm sorry sir, your token must have fallen out when you unplugged the internet cable from your computer. When you find it, call me back and I'll be more than happy to talk you through putting it back in and getting your network back up and on the internet again."
Karma is like sex. I can't remember the last time I had either of them.
I really have to question this article, and it's sources. It claims this is some kind of record, but i'm certain it's not. Perhaps it's just a bit of good ol' American Pride getting in the way here?
Guys, it's 932 Megabits per second. Not even a gigabit. For gosh sakes, you can get 10 Gigabit (that's 10,000 megabit) connections these days, if you buy really expensive high end gear. However, having a single data stream doing that fast is indeed impressive. But it's been done before.
This article outlines how YottaYotta (a storage company) along with 7 key partners (CANARIE, WestGrid, BCNET, StarLight, Netera Alliance, The Logistical Computing and Internetworking Laboratory at the University of Tennessee and The Physics Department at Carleton University.) were able to transfer data at 11.1 Gbps (that's 11,100 megabits) over 10,000 km, reading and writing on disks at either end. They used straight TCP/IP, and the main limitation was the 12 Gbps limit of their WAN link. Really they did, check the article.
So 11 times faster than this 'record', and using actual disks at either end, and standard TCP/IP. I'd say this record wins.
engage sarcasm Thanks slashdot, for another wonderfully accurate, informative story, of which we should not question, just believe blindly. disengage sarcasm
(923 Mb/sec) (Tb / 1024^2 Mb) (TB / 8 Tb) (LOC / 20 TB)(3600 sec / hr) = 1.98 * 10^-2 LOC/hr
Or:
(923 Mb/sec) (Tb / 1000^2 Mb) (TB / 8 Tb) (LOC / 20 TB)(3600 sec / hr) = 2.08 * 10^-2 LOC/hr
I can't remember if bandwidth is calculated using 1024s or 1000s, but both ways give a fairly similar number.
It would be nice if 1 KB equaled 1024 bytes all the time instead of being 1000 bytes when manufacturers want to make their drives sound bigger than they really are. (Granted, they're probably using gigabytes, which are 1024^3 bytes, but you get the idea.)
that that is is that that is not is not
maxi#sh int pos4/0
POS4/0 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Packet over SONET
Internet address is x.x.x.x/30
MTU 4470 bytes, BW 9952000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, rely 255/255, load 237/255
Encapsulation HDLC, crc 16, loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
Scramble enabled
Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:11:12
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops
30 second input rate 9364255000 bits/sec, 13610835 packets/sec
30 second output rate 9269523000 bits/sec, 13473144 packets/sec
664134744840 packets input, 40577299404348 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
0 parity
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
664073263238 packets output, 40559795510616 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 applique, 0 interface resets
0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
0 carrier transitions
maxi#
So just pull your hard drives and cram *them* in the station wagon. The data's already on them, presumably, and can just be plugged into the computer(s) at the other end.
Quick estimate of 5000 hard drives, 200GB each, in a station wagon. Hell, make it 10000 drives in a fullsize van so the math is nicer. 1000TB goes 3000 miles (coast to coast, US) in about 45 hours driving time at the speed limit. IMMIR (If My Math Is Right), it comes out to about 6.2GB/s or 50Gb/s. Faster over shorter distances or at "unsanctioned" velocities.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
hell, my math isn't right. I did 5000 drives after all. Well, room left over in the van for a keg to be used at the other end.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
In other words, these guys were running at between OC-12 and OC-24 speeds.
YAWN!!!!
Considering I'm surrounded by companies putting in their 3rd or 4th OC-48 (you know, 2.448 Gbps/each), color me unimpressed...
...how's the ping time? Being on a semi-congested cable modem (with roommates who don't play online games, but do download), I seldom care about bandwidth... I'm usually griping about the 100 to 1000ms ping times that keep my awesome FPS skills in check.
:)
In other words, when do we get the quantuum packet transfer?
2) When you're at a university using Internet2, does it work through the same TCP/IP protocol? What I mean is, do you use a browser, and its transparent to the user whether you're on Internet2 or Internet1... that would be interesting, because then you could actually route between them. Does Internet2 use IPv6?
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
Snail Mail Still Winning The Bandwidth War
That's like taking sand to the beach! Water to the ocean! Money to Washington!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Yeah, but the latency's a bitch.
--Dan
No, Canada has some much faster networks. CA*Net 3 was sold to Bellnexxia a while ago, after CA*Net 4 was built.
h tm - but be warned, there are a *lot* of files. On high latency connections, you may want to enable pipelining in Mozilla before accessing it.
CA*Net 4, on the other hand, has a series of point-to-point 10 gigabit fibre links. The big thing about this network is that it places routing control and allocation of bandwidth in the hands of the end-users.
For a neat traffic map, check out http://205.189.33.72/stats/CAnet4map/CAnet4mapl3.
--Dan
How many Libraries of Congress per Age of the Universe is that ?
I'm gonna smoke an ounce to this! ;)
Must-not-watch TV!
If the server your two gamers are playing on is halfway between them, the distance drops to 12,000 miles round-trip. Giving each player a ping time of ~75ms, or about what I'm stuck at on most Battlefield 1942 servers as it is. Of course, the wiring and routing aren't that good, or I wouldn't be stuck at 75ms talking to the west coast from the midwest. And the server won't always be dead-center, so somebody will have to suck it up and deal with the lousy ping.
But still, there is the *potential* for gamers to be able to play the other side of the world, even without drilling a hole through its chewy center to get the distance down to 8000 miles.
And it's a BIG market. This had never occured to me before your post, but gamers clamoring for lower pings may beat the space program to solving that pesky lightspeed problem!
This isn't free-space optics; light travels more slowly in fiber, and fiber routes are usually not quite straight lines so the distances the fiber goes are a bit longer than the endpoint-to-endpoint distances. The rule of thumb is 10ms per 1000 airline miles, but that's partly because it's a nice round number; some people use 8ms or 9ms, depending on how straight the cable run is.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Every link out there is private, in one way or another.
I own a link between two buildings, which is "on the net".
How is internet2 private? it's no more private than the Internet you are using... it's just you can't get dialup to it at the moment because.. THERE IS NO MARKET, and no point.
These days, there's a ton of information, but we have to wade through 6 tons of crap to find it, dodging pr0n pop-ups every step of the way -- on top of that, there's so much apocryphal (sp?) info out there that you have to double-check your sources.
Either way, things aren't really all that great, except it was new and exciting back then (MUDding from home, for example). However, you'll never be able to get me to go back to overnight downloads for a couple of megs of data, or trying to get Netscape 1.2 to play nice with Windows 3.11.
were they useing kazaa or winmx to do this??