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!
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).
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...
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.
1 tb is 1024 * 1024 * 8 megabits (8388608 MB)
8388608 MB / 923 MB/s = 9088 s
9088 s = 2.53 h
Seems fast enough, or am I missing something?
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"
Surely isn't it the other way around? ;)
Yes, OC192 is faster, but I've never heard of a single computer being able to push that much data that fast over a single connection.
A few years ago SGI did a test where they leased a piece of cross-country dark fibre for a day and ran GSN over it. That's a single connection-- using ST, not TCP-- from one computer to another computer, RAM to RAM. They pegged over 790 MB/s (that's a big B, as in megabytes per second), and sustained it for hours. And, just to reiterate, this was from one computer to another computer, without any fancy-schmancy multiplexing or anything. This was the ST equivalent of a single FTP transfer.
I can't find any documentation of this test on the web, but I saw it with mine own eyes. One end of the connection was in Herndon, VA, (where I was) and the other was out west someplace.
The SLAC test did 900+ Mb/s over a switched network, which is darned impressive. It's undoubtedly a record for a public switched connection. But don't go thinking it's an absolute land speed record or anything like that.
I write in my journal
Namaste
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.
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!
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.
Who's more likely to be stoned? Somebody in Amsterdam, or somebody in the bay area?
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Lesse...
10,978Km / c (speed of light) = (about) 0.0036 s
At least 3.6ms latency. Likley in the 5ms range tho, considering cut-through times and propegation delays.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Hopefully never. There should be a network that remains purely academic forever. Commercialization is evil. Look what it did to Internet1. 95% of all pages have some kind of ad on them, and finding anything useful when you're looking for something obscure is nearly impossible, whereas in about '95 I could find just about any obscure thing I wanted to know.
A solution to the problem with music today
6.7 gigs? Ah! Now we know where that Longhorn beta was leaked.
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.
Article here: http://chronicle.com/free/v45/i47/47a02101.htm.
He missed a . that would be .648 Gbps
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
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.
Obscure things? Try everything2! [/shameless plug]
or if you do it the right way (tm):
10.978.000 / 300.000.000 =
10.978 / 300.000 ~= 0,036593 -> 36.59ms
(and you should probably get a better measure for both the distance and the speed of light
mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
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.
Seriously though, if anyone here is thinking that any ISP with 3,500 256kbps connections has that bandwidth available, think again. The issue of contention comes to play. Here in the UK, the contention ratio for a typical home DSL connection is 1:50, meaning the ISP allocates one fiftieth of (number_of_connections x connection_speed). In other words, the ISP oversells their capacity 50-fold. Business DSL connections get more bandwidth reserved for them, typically 1:20 here.
You can't shut us down! The Internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas!
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
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.
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!
The question is which government? Last time I looked a) the Internet was international and b) we din't have a world governement.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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.
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?
Add in that the speed of light is measured through a vacuum. Put in through something like fiber and the maximum speed is cut to 2/3 max.
.667) =
10,978 km / (300,000 km/sec *
10,978 kn / (200,100 km/sec) = 54.86 ms.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
...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?