Slashdot Mirror
8.6 GB Internet?
prostoalex writes "Caltech computer scientists announced the protocol, capable of delivering 8,609 Mbps over the Internet, using 10 simultaneous flows of data. The research project was conducted in partnership with CERN, DataTAG, StarLight, Cisco, and Level 3. The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'. There is a number of papers and scientific publications available."
CERN, DataTAG, StarLight & Cisco - watch out! MPAA is coming for you!
Now the fp's will appear even sooner.
btw. maybe fp.
Look a monkey!
They've been facing a major bandwidth crunch.
I have a dream. Some day the editors will learn the difference between a bit and a byte. Or I'll byte a bit of their heads off. [grumble]
I've had this sig for three days.
CalTech's Motto: Enabling Faster Porn and Slashdoting Through Technology
Bless those people
Finally a worthty way to connect all those beowulf clusters weve been imagining!
What signature defines me as a person?
The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'.
I'm sure the MPAA would love hearing that DVD downloading is considered a "practical application." Of course, they would consider it to be 500 DVDs since the protocol is 500x faster (or whatever it is) than the average consumer's connection.
Now my lil bro will be able to fill up our HD with porn in a couple of minutes...
in 5 seconds? Ruh-roh, how could anyone develop technologies that can be used by the p2p networks to trade copyright content!?!
;)
The above comment was sarcasm, but ya never know
--------
Free your mind.
I can't help but be amused that that was their first measurement standard for it.
Oh, they meant legit full-length DVD movies...
The coolest voice ever.
impatient people... can't even wait 5 minutes nowadays... geesh...
is Jack Valenti having an aneurysm.
This
How many Libraries of Congress per hour is that?
Wearing pants should always be optional.
um.... since when was a byte more than 8 bits? It IS more than a gigabyte (if it's Gb and not GB)
While this is pretty cool theoretically, current hard drives don't even come close to handling this kind of bandwidth, so there isn't much use for this until we can actually manage to store the data fast enough to keep up with the connection.
Why would you want to do that? Don't you understand that this connection would be much, much faster than your current modem? It would be at least 24 times faster, with the potential of being up to 57 times faster. Especially during off-peak hours like Thursday at 8pm.
i read this when it was on fark the other day, and i had to wonder what the big deal was. the speed worked out to be slightly lower than 10 gigabits.
bearing that in mind, isn't 10 gigabit TCP in the getting-done stages?
i don't know, maybe i missed something 'golly-gee' about this. this just seemed superfluous.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
I'd like to see the MPAA or RIAA's view on this;-)
Five seconds?? Ohhhh... but I want it NOW!
The problem is, what sort of mass storage device can write at 8.6 gigabits/sec?
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
sorry, my above comment (first reply to parent's parent) is wrong.
the article is very conflicting. One place says 8 GB, but another says "8600 Mbps" which is just over 1 Gbps, which is just over 100 MB/sec
On the internet, a byte is normally 10 bits--8 bits of data, one starting bit, and one ending bit. Thus, 10Mbps = 1 MBps.
5 gigs o' ram will do nicely....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
those are not real bits, and do not get counted as bits when talking about bps.
Not only can a high-end storage array handle that sort of throughput, but it can do it without any bugs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
since when was a byte more than 8 bits?
Since TCP/IP overhead. Since error correction. The more accurate figure is 10 bits in a byte.
Will I retire or break 10K?
True, also how fast can a person absorb data, why is it nessesary to download a 2 hour movie in 5 minites (or seconds I can't remember now). Faster net connections are a good thing to a certain extent, but sometimes the persuit for speed goes beyond practicality. This happened in the super car industry with the Mclaren F1, it was just too fast at aprox 240mph (I think). Is this going to be the case for network speed, are we going to kill super fast networking by providing something which is just redicuoulsly fast? And equally unnessesary.
If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
Okay, todays RAM can top 8GB/s, so there is no problem generating data and sending it through this like that. However, hard drives can't even reach 1/100th of this speed, so don't expect your p2p programs to go much faster ;)
This can be great for sites that require a massive pipe and have fiber hard drives's or ISPs. Also be good defence against a slashdotting ;)
that may be silly, but in the case this technology is actually developped, there will remain a crucial battle : the RIAA/MPAA (media lobbies) are going to be so scared by such a tech that they'll do all what they can so that it comes with some kind of DRM (digital rights managements).
In other words, such a technology would give a boost to legal attempts to allow hard DRM - as is today illegal under the liberty-preserving legislation of a lot of countries, especially in Europe.
Do not answer that the media lobbies aren't asked to give their opinions here. Because it is part of Microsoft's, Intel's and AMD's (to cite only 3 members of the vast TCPA alliance) strategy to maintain good relationships with the media companies in order to enlarge the computer market.
You know what I'm talking about - Palladium. I don't think it's necessary to insist on the fact that it would be a bad thing for us.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
>um.... since when was a byte more than 8 bits?
/. a server using the existing infrastructure should paint a pretty picture of where the bottleneck stands :)
When you count in octal, there are 10 bits to a byte. After a few months doing coding on old big iron I accidently balanced my checkbook in octal. Took me a WEEK to get that straightened out.
Honestly though, this doesn't eliminate the bottleneck, it just moves it from the cables to the Server, or to your hard drive. Given that we can pretty much
I still would like to get it to my house, though.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
It is just over a gig a second.
Not all of that is data. Some is packet headers. Some is error correction. That's why you can't push 6 KB per second over a v.90 dial-up connection at 48 kbps.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Is there a readily available technical solution for the following?
;-)
20 people connected to a Wireless LAN.
Each person commits 10-20% of their 56k dial-up connection for a server on the network to use.
A program (running on the server) requests portions of "large files" by either:
1) Connecting direct and requesting via ftp/http. ie. 20 requests for 5% using file resuming and then stopping when the amount has been pulled down.
2) Connecting to another server on the web which proxies the data and chops it up for streaming.
Does this kinda setup already exist? If so please cast me an URL
Auto-check your UK lottery lines
ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds' How is that possible if your hard drive cannot write data at such a speed?
I don't know about you, but I like the idea of being able to add a movie to my collection by paying a small fee (say $10) and downloading an .iso (well, the DVD equivalent of one) and burning it to disc with an elapsed time of under 10 minutes.
Of course, the question remains as to whether the MPAA will wake up and realise that they can use the internet to make profit rather than vainly trying to thwart file traders.
My other sig is funny!
Who needs hard disk capacity if you can stream a movie in realtime? *eg*
BTW, even if hard disks eventually reach the required capacity, you wouldn't be able to store it on disk anyway thanks to MPAA's DRM initiative...
sorry i was drunk when i said that
disregard above comment.
I imagine that there will be a day when you can get ANY movie regardless of popularity from Blockbuster, Best Buy or Circuit City easier than filling out a prescription. You just tell them what legacy movie or TV show episodes you want and 15 minutes later your burned DVD with professional looking label printed on it is ready for pick-up for $20-$30. It may even include a difficult to replicate vendor hologram on the label side of the DVD to help distingish it from non-approved burns.
I choked on my 2am coffee when I read that!
Jack Valenti has heart failure at announcement.
Hilary Rosen Responds by announcing DMSCA bill.
Berman and Hollings, after campaign contributions and honorariums, announce co-sponsor the Digital Millenium Scientist Control Act, stating that the only reason scientists could possibly have for developing the technology for such fast downloads is to support porn, piracy, and terrorists.
The Digital Millenium Scientist Control Act is written to allow scientific research, unless it can be used to deny unjust enrichment of the MPAA/RIAA members, in which case the scientists will be put through a shredder, or turned loose in a locked room with MPAA/RIAA executives, at the MPAA/RIAA's choosing.
Hollings could be overhead asking Berman, "What's a computer?", and Berman could be heard answering, "It's something the MPAA/RIAA are trying to turn into a television. I told you we could squeeze more cash out them. Now tell me where you invest your honorariums, and then shut up".
Hell, I would download the Internet if it was only 8,6 GB - I wish it was! It takes so long right now ;)
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
But at this point still illegal.
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
The demonstrations used a 10 Gbps link...
So, stop making it sound like one can turn a 28.8 modem into a cable modem. Parallel downloading is nothing new (rate limited ftp servers have been around for years.)
...CERN, DataTAG, StarLight, Cisco to release "The complete works of Jenna Jameson" in div-x format. Order now!
Are you kidding? The ability to download a full DVD in 5 seconds has tons of practical application. For instance, you could rent movies over the net...
Why would you want to do that? Don't you understand that this connection would be much, much faster than your current modem? It would be at least 24 times faster, with the potential of being up to 57 times faster. Especially during off-peak hours like Thursday at 8pm.
That would make me 24 times the pirate I am today, with the potential to be up to 57 times the pirate I am today. Then they would use that peculiar method of reasoning to assign me a sentence that would require 24 lifetimes to serve, with the potential of requiring up to 57 lifetimes to serve.
Of course, I'm all for upping the stakes, here.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Who needs hard disk capacity if you can stream a movie in realtime?
Why would anybody want to watch an entire movie in 5 seconds, certainly my ability to absorb information is not as good as that and I regard it to be rather high(Toung in cheek).
If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
Nerd: "I developed technology to download porn one million times faster."
Marge: "Does anyone really need that much porn?"
Homer: "(salivating noise) Ahhhhhhhh million times faster"
[/quote]
In reality, though, I bet that BearShare would work GREAT on this connection!
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
His e-mail address is xaxxon@slackworks.com
8.6Mb/s is snatching it
Yeah, yeah. I meant Gb/s. Still not fast enough to get you laid.
One... Two?? Ohh hell yeah. Jenna Jameson here I cu... err.. come!!
From the article: The protocol is called FAST, standing for Fast Active queue management Scalable Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).
That would be FAQMSTCP..in other words pronounced
FAH Q MS TCP...
as read on FARK...
(stood on end, that is...)
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
My T1 line sometimes gets maxed out by people downloading the multimedia pr0n I host on my Linux servers.
Thank you, CalTech!
Er, may I ask for some explanation as to why my parent message has been modded as 'troll' ? I really don't understand. Is Hilary Rosen slashdotting around here ?
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
Sounds like the old "shotgun" modems, two 56k modems, two phonelines, 100kbps (theoretically). A temporary stopgap measure as you can see.
Hedley
since you know, a full size dvd is such a horrible measurement im looking into how many olympic swimming pools a second that is ;-)
You don't need to download a movie in 5 seconds to rent a move over the net. You only need to go slightly faster than real time. In theory you could make it in exactly real time but in practice it doesn't work that way. DVDs are variable bit rate with a maximum rate of 10 Mbps so 11 Mbps should make it.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
Having access to an 8 Gb/s connection doesn't mean you'll have to saturate it 24/7 ;-)
On the other hand, those dumb Dawson Creek loving people will probably just download all episodes in DV-format, making my important games slow again...
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law
Just think of the Slashdot potential for this. Someday, we may very well be able to post using high-quality audio/video clips instead of text messages.
depends - if you're talking about throughput, then yes you are. eg a 512kbps adsl line means 512kbps of data + overhead delivered to the computer, not data only.
Goodput is the amount of 'real' data delivered.
Check out the ADSL speed testers - they'll try to calculate and display that overhead.
Marge: "Does anyone need that much porno?"
Then they would use that peculiar method of reasoning to assign me a sentence that would require 24 lifetimes to serve, with the potential of requiring up to 57 lifetimes to serve.
...and in other news, Texas executed it's first software pirate today.
I reckon so too, but not for many years. This will not help that much - reading the article says that they only improved the efficiency of the network.
;-)
So, don't expect 8Gbps over your phone line, but the speed at the ISP end would be much improved (3x) so they could start dropping their prices or offering faster connections... like I said, not for a long while
What about the poor saps whose 'last mile' is 56K?
Do they simply install more phone lines?
d00d, your Mama's so slow, I fragged her before she even booted this morning..
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
One of the features I love about BSplayer is the ability to increase/decrease playback speed by 10%.
Recently I downloaded all the Family Guy episodes, and watching them at 20% faster makes them sound more like SouthPark than Family Guy, but it saves me something like 5 minutes per 21 minute episode. And it's mostly intelligible. ;-)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Speak for yourself. Maybe.
Tá na hora de dormir.
Since when does TCP/IP overhead have any effect on completely different protocols?
The protocol mentioned in the article is a modification of TCP, and like TCP, it has some protocol overhead to it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
how long will it take before we have hard drives that can deliver enough data to satiate this kind of bandwidth???
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
Hey, I've got one! Previously Queued Redundant Internet-Transmitted Overclocked Network Files (PQRITONF). My acronym: PRON. Well, CalTech can do it, why can't I? :)
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
Well, asynchronous serial ports would transmit up to 10 bits for every byte sent (8E1, or 8 data bits (the byte), an even parity and a stop bit), but usually 9 bits (8N1, with no parity). There is overhead in every communication layer, so even if you are not using asynchronous serial ports, it's usually wise to not consider a 8 bits/s the same as a *data* byte/s. I usually consider a data byte/s to be 10 bits/s of the signaling layer, which is a very rough approximation but is easy to calculate.
Until a network slowdown causes your bandwidth to drop unexpectedly, or a sudden spike causes the server to pause for a minute. While you don't neccesarily need the entire movie cached ahead of time, you need to be well ahead of realtime to make it realistically feasible. To assure uninterupted play (which you'd need to do for it to be acceptable to the market) you'd need a good amount of the movie downloaded before play started.
Why are you my foe and why am I your foe again?
You will never see that much bandwidth because there are so many other bottlenecks. Your throughput is only as fast as the slowest node. To be honest I believe advancements in fiber technology like Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) and advancements in router processor/RAM technology will have a greater effect on your throughput than this. Although it will be a while before your throughput from the net is faster than your HDD can handle you do make a valid point about the limits of the technology. In particular with LAN file servers and transfer rates. Gig Ethernet cards already come standard on Power Macs. I think the next evolution of PC design will be RAM drives and storage. You will also see larger HDD cache, and more use of cache in general.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
i thought there was a limit of 4 gigs ram because of 32-bit addressing.
And I won't add the problem of hard drive speeds which can't handle it. Of course, big RAID arrays and the like can, but not consumer drives.
Of course, eventually, when we use a better quality encoding method for video/audio, the datarate may have to increase, but right now, it's useless.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
That is why I said that you need slightly more bandwidth than the maximum data rate. Most of the time DVDs run between 5 and 7.5 Mbps with peaks to a max of 10 Mbps for sequences with a lot of movement. So even with a 10 Mbps connection a temporary network problem shouldn't affect the playback of your movie
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
These guys have been talking about the same thing only with wireless access points. Check out this story to see what they intend to do with it.
I like the idea of aggregate bandwidth, and I think it is something we *will* see en masse very soon.
Probably because you flamed me once.
You're assuming an x86 machine, which might not be the case
For all you people wondering, just click the link.
"The protocol is called FAST, standing for Fast Active queue management Scalable Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)."
Does this like "FAST" mean they better hurry up and get rid of TCP/IP in a hurry? I don't like the sound of "queue management" and "transmission Control Protocol" in the same sentence. Does anyone know if this is proprietary? I don't care how good of a protocol this is, what it's capabilities are, but if it's proprietary, It need not be deployed. Who is gonna control the queue anyhow?
8600 Mbps is about 860MB/s.
That's about 20 times the writespeed availible in high performance drives.
So if you build a large enough raidstack, you'll handle it.
The big trouble is having a computer that can handle it.
Most of todays systems is having trouble keeping up with even 1000 Mbps ethernet due to a combination of bus, tcp/ip stack, os and driver trouble.
But with the speed of which hardware gets faster, I'll say that by the time this standard gets implemented in practice, you'll have a computer, os and harddrive that can handle it. =)
And you'll probably have a whole network, or a couple of them, connected to that speed. It will most likely be implemented at the internet backbone long before you get that kind of access at home or at your regular company.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Sorry, no.
The RS-232 async serial protocol -- your COM: port to a modem -- uses start and stop bits.
"The Internet" does not generally run over RS-232 or any other such async protocol, and such a calculation is not generally applicable. "The Internet" runs over all sorts of physical links, with all sorts of different overhead. Even the final link to your house varies. DSL, cable, and dialup all have different amounts of overhead.
The links the article is talking about were most likely SONET, and probably IP over SONET.
I don't understand what it means tho, I need all my measurements in Library of Congress.
Now, How many Libraries of Congress per second is that?
8.6 gigs over the internet. I have 2x that much porn in a Kazaa queue. (I think they meant per second)
First, they said it uses 10 parallel data streams. So any given stream is only running ~860Mbps. Could this be a resurgence of parallel commucations? For example, 10 cheap 100Mbps LAN transcievers integrated into 1 card for Gigabit Ethernet speed? Would there be any cost advantages of cramming large numbers of cheap devices onto a card VS a single fast but expensive device? Sort of like Billion-Dollar-Probes vs the smaller/faster/cheaper thing at NASA.
And I figure that by the time this becomes mainstream, the amount of data needing to be transferred will also have increased by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, and you'll still be stuck waiting hours for the latest HoloVideo downloads. Just like you wait hours to download Attack of the Clones over DSL and Cable, and like you once waited hours to download that 5 meg shareware program over your 56K modem.
Seems like the amount of data being stored is always 1 step ahead of the amount that can be conveniently transferred... We need a war on program bloat.
This won't help me a bit... I got a bandwidth cap. :(
...in which someone told me that there has yet to be backbone built that could go faster than a station wagon loaded with backup tapes doing 90 mph from Buffalo to Syracuse...
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
Let's say a DVD holds 3 hours of video. If you can transfer the same DVD contents 5 seconds over this connection, that means that you can transfer information... (3*60*60)/5 = 2160 times as fast as a DVD player requires. So, rather than one DVD every 5 seconds, you could transfer ~2000 DVDs along the same channel at the same time; which one you watched would be a matter of "tuning" in on the right time-slice.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Right, that's assuming you have this connection to your desktop. You'll be sharing this bandwidth with several other people (unless you're uber rich) and the pipe will fill up fast with pr0n downloads (even at work).
Hopefully, since this is a new protocal rather than a new hardware change - a firmware upgrade should sufice rather than a retooling (I only STFA). This would make the bandwidth cheap enough, that even @home/attbi/comcast companies could bump the speed up a little and still turn a fair profit. Then I won't have to change my URL and email address AGAIN.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
Hey, what happened to Libraries of Congress per fortnight?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Orders of magnitude are a logarithmic scale. (i.e. 3 orders of magnitude is 100x as much as 1 order of magnitude) so a gigabyte is actually ~.9030899 orders of magnitude more then a gigabit.
Not to be picky, or anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Communication companies use bits because it lets them say bigger, more impressive sounding numbers, and because it's the 'fundamental' unit of information measuring
No one uses 10 bits/byte.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"There is a number of papers and scientific publications available."
There is? What is that number?
Tell that to multiplayer game developers who have to make games playable with modems.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
but the question remains, how fast can you download pr0n??
I hate sigs.
ISPs will never ever ever give that much bandwidth to the average person. I mean, sheesh, they wont even give me more than 128kbit upload :(
Too bad the other 16 minutes are utterly, utterly wasted.
I bet Jack Valenti is shitting his pants right about now...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
...movies in the future will most likely be of higher data size, doncha think? More 3-D styled, more stereo, much more special effects, etc. Look at everything else we do with computers, used to be able to browse the net pretty spiffy from a 14.4, but then the content got better, lots more pics and whatnot, so we needed more speed, more speed meant faster processors, yada yada. And not having to have the data compressed or be in any sort of lossy format is a +. so maybe instead of DVDs it will be ultradvd or something. didn't we have a thread here about two months back about some new formats on disk coming out? 20 gigs or something on a disk?
I don't know, I just like it some faster, speaking as a guy on rural dialup who's lucky to snag around a 26 k connection on a good day. Heck, I would be ecstatic with a floppy amount per second, that is gee whizz buck rogers stuff to me, reading about these guys got cable connections. That's personal flying car level to me. heh. Anyway, I just hope these wireless guys can get their stuff together and come up with THE WIRELESS INTARWEB and not 18 different kinds of wireless. I'm holding out, seems like a new wireless every other week. Makes betamax or vhs standard wars seem trivial. There needs to be a better and more robust standard,and I'd like to see it not any more complicated than like a set of rabbit ears to setup, get some sort of broadband with cheap hardware, emphasis *cheap* no 1000 buck satellite or having line of sight repeaters and having to build it myself from the nearest burg.
The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'
In other news, the MPAA has filed a lawsuit against Caltech for "aiding the piracy of copyrighted movies". The RIAA is expected to file a similar lawsuit as many wonder why they haven't already milked Caltech for all the money it's got.
think of all the porn!
10 GB of RAM is all you need ;)
The short answer to all technological motivation questions is PORN.
But here's the long answer.
Had you read the article, you'd know the motivation was to reduce latency of communiation between locations participating in large-scale simultions. It's for a kind of meta-beowolf cluster.
Even so, note that this paves the way for far richer content. A normal movie is a three-dimensional picture (and sounds): it's an array of two-dimmensional pictures indexed by time. If it takes five seconds to convey two hours of video, that means it's feasable to transmit four-dimensional video in a worth-while amount of time. Four-dimensional video would be a movie the viewer can walk around in. We don't currently have the technology to generate or view a full-motion three-dimensional world, but anyone who read the article would know this protocol is barely out of the lab yet.
A lot of /. drones have also been wondering what would generate or receive this much data. The answer to this is also to RTFA: arrays of computers generate and receive the data. Besides which, by the time this technology is readily available to the masses, the associated components needed to take advantage of it will also be available. How many motherboards sold these days have an ISA slot? rs232 port? AT keybaord? How many have on-board 100Mbit 10baseT? USB? PCI-64? AGP 8X? Does anyone still by MTM hard drives? Or remember them? Does anyone still buy ram in chips? SIMMs?
right now, it's useless
The folks who developed this did didn't do it for you. It has a use now, and will have more uses as the associated technologies develop. There's a lot more to the world than you or I will ever wrap our tiny brains around...
Why would anybody want to watch an entire movie in 5 seconds
Have you watched a movie recently?
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Why would you need to download it in 5 seconds?
Because hopefully in the near future, MEMS "switches" will use tiny mirrors to create an ephemeral, purely optical, dedicated path across the world, through all the fibers directly to your home. Or maybe it's not dedicated, but a number of key hops along the way are "opened up" to massive capacity in response to your request. Once the path is set up (about 100ms), you have an uberfast link all thw way to the server. But it's expensive, so you have to use it and get off of it quick.
So you need a transfer protocol that can use that path as efficiently as possible. You download the movie in five seconds, it gets dumped into RAM, and then the link shrinks back to normal. The movie starts, while your PC spends the next couple minutes dumping the data from RAM to your disk.
Rambling on... I skimmed the article briefly - it explains what they accomplished in their test, but not how the protocol works. The key question is how "fair" is this protocol to regular TCP traffic? It's easy to make TCP go faster for bulk transfers by turning a few knobs at the sender's side (esp CWND backoff and growth parameters) or just opening multiple connections in parallel. But you're just stealing bandwidth from "regular" TCP connections when the link is saturated.
When dealing with "log fat pipes", even uncongested ones, the key is to grow the congestion window to the capacity of the link and then keep it there. TCP is very conservative and will back off too much when it hits the ceiling - then it takes a few RTTs to get back up to the link capacity. On a LAN it's no problem but at long distances it gets tricky.
Changing TCP so it uses the full capacity of an uncongested link, but also acts fairly in the event of congestion... that's hard. Would love to know how they did this.
It's "Professor Frink". And pr0n.
Wow, not too many 8s and 9s in your checkbook, hmm?
While having this kind of bandwidth would be nice, consumer grade computers let alone the hardware are beyond woefully inadequate. About all you could hope for would be a 100M/bit connection. This is assuming that the phone company/cable operator dosen't bend you over for the cost of said connection.
The only machine that I know of that could even utilize a connection this fast is a Cray X1
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Chips cost money. Just reducing the chip count has a cost savings. Thus, 10 interfaces rarely will be as cheap as 1 faster one.
Also note that a single 1Gb interface is currently only about 2.5-3X as expensive as a single 100MBit one. So you're already behind the curve.
And that's beside the fact that you'd need to run 10 cables to each location to get the same bandwidth as the single 1Gb cable.
If this is so, and once again [I've carped on about this before] why not switch to the METRIC SYSTEM.
Damn wacky imperial standard.
Yay me!
I'm gonna have lots of fun downloading LEGAL 8.6 Gb files since there is a plentiful amount of movies I can get online without going to jail... oh wait Seriously folks, exactly how do they expect people to use such a tremendous bandwidth retrieving legal stuff on the internet... Each and every person considering getting something like this is praying for it because they want movies, music and other things the RIAA and MPAA wants us in jail for downloading... Don't believe me? Name me one file (forget the Library of Congress will ya!) you would like to get that isn't in some way "illegal" to download... Only thing I would imagine enjoying LEGALLY would be that ping of 1 while I frag the hell out of everyone in Q3A, I can see it now... it would be like "bullet time" from The Matrix, oops! I usd copyrighted material in a post!
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
So, let's hold a contest. You've heard of 64k demo contests, right?
Let's see who can write the most functional 64k office suite.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
A byte is not defined to be 8 bits. A byte is the smallest addressable unit of storage, which on most modern architectures is 8 bits.
Some older architectures used 7-bit bytes; some had 9-bit bytes.
8,609 Mbps ought to be enough for everyone!
Have you watched a movie recently?
Yes, it was Hart's War and it filled my 2 hour train journey nicely thankyou!
If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
Now I can download porn faster than I can oggle it!
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Huh? Is GWB Texas govenor again?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
They are transmitting accross a public network, so in a sense many streams will be contended at one point or another. By splitting the data into 10 streams they are getting an advantage, as their data stream will in effect have a 10-fold priority over other internet traffic.
But what if this was done on a mass scale, and everyone used 10 streams to increase their transfer rate? I imagine the combined bandwidth would be as bad as a single stream was. Which I find questionable if its efficient, or a good thing for the Internet.
I'm still holding out for the theoretical 75tbps over glass fiber, it will be so fast it blow anything up the RIAA has to track it.
I think Al Gore wrote it before he invented the internet.
What's the point of owning the DVD? With this much bandwidth even at a relatively high contention ratio video on demand becomes feasible. Movie channels now often have a number of showings of the same film at different times so people can chose when they watch it. How about a service where you pick the film and the time you watch it, and it can be any released film? If a service like this could be marketed for $10-20/month then I can't imagine video piracy surviving very long, because it will be a lot of effort for a very small return.
As with almost every new technology, it will require a social restructuring to to accommodate it. This may well take longer than the development of the technology.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You mean it only takes 5 seconds to download that monochrome gif? It's gonna take you 2 hours to get off anyway.
We will never exceed the amount of bandwidth that is useful. Stop trying to hold back progress!
Trying ot talk about converting between all the terms is meaningless in this context...
the proper term for data transmission is bits per second. Extrapolating what that MEANS TO YOU is application specific. You have to read the specs for the medium involved.
100Mbps ethernet is an entirely accurate description of what it is.. it's an ether that can carry 100 million bits per second, exactly. Nobody sait it means 2 hosts can communicate at 100Mbps, and nobody said what higher layer overhead is involved.. it only means that, when fully loaded with multiple busy hosts, it will handle 100 million bits per second.
It's silly to move between kilobits to kilobytes.. be cause generally a kilobit is 1000 bits (data transmission term) and a kilobyte is a memory term (1024 bytes)..... and we don't know what overhead there is to transfer a byte in the first place.
And I figure that by the time this becomes mainstream, the amount of data needing to be transferred will also have increased by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, and you'll still be stuck waiting hours for the latest HoloVideo downloads. Just like you wait hours to download Attack of the Clones over DSL and Cable, and like you once waited hours to download that 5 meg shareware program over your 56K modem.
Maybe, if you believe people will have holovids and holovision... but in my experience more and more stuff becomes possible.. text, pictures, music, video, games.. Remember, "The 7th Guest" was 2 CDs and I played it on my 1x CD-ROM drive. Most games today are 2-3 CDs. In other words, things haven't really gotten much bigger (despite the claims of MS bloat, my OS takes less and less relative place (in %) on my hard drive. With better compression like ogg and divx, the same music and movies is actually taking *less* space than old mp3s and vcds. As long as Joe Sixpack only has a NTSC/PAL TV, or HDTV even it's not going to be very big compared to future connection speeds. I can run a gigabit network now for the cost of a ten megabit network just some years ago. The base infrastructure takes longer, but I have no doubt we'll see internet speeds also continue to rise steadily.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
theres always a nice 8x raid striping (sp?) to make up for that
What is really needed is reasearch to make this kind of thing cheap. It doesn't really matter to the average consumer or even a small/medium size business that some lab or super well funded corporation can get extreme speed for outragous amounts of money. Heck, OC12 has been around for years but it still goes for over $30,000 per month and we are all stuck using cable or DSL or 56K dialup.
Cool, so when can I buy this new little modem thingie to plug into my USB port which will let me download 10 Divx movies a second?
Deuteronomy 13:06-9
Wow, this is much faster than any ethernet cards on the market.
A DVD is 4.7gigs, just under 5gigabytes. They can transfer that in just under 5 seconds. So they claim to send about 1gig/sec. This is the bandwidth of PC133!! In therory. In reality it is lower. So you'll need DDR memory to sustain this tranfer speed.
Basically if all my Athlon 1200 with DDR was doing is streaming I can get 1120MB/sec, enough to read a DVD worth of data from memory in 4.3 seconds.
They claim they've made the internet as fast as my memory in my PC simply by using some new protocol?
I think I'm a skepic.
What's the point of owning the DVD?
Well, I like having the physical object, and I can watch a movie when the network goes down. Isn't that enough?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
After a few months doing coding on old big iron I accidently balanced my checkbook in octal.
Yeah, I know what you mean, bro'. If you can believe it, I once got so immersed in geek culture that I started confusing Jargon File anecdotes and real life!
ROFL. Busted. Yaya, I occasionally embellish here for a cheap laugh. Total recall of things I have read is a good thing, photographic memory also a good thing, being able to recall any smell - not so good.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
actually it used to be about 300 bps or 30 chars per second due to extra two bits (stop/parity) at least at my house. Connected to my Apple II! I remember being freaked out by the first 1200 baud modem I saw - you couldn't read in realtime off the line so what's the point right? Then came the dawn of nibble copiers and bang zoom here we are. :) the 16KB Language Card got you Applesoft and Pascal that was great.
Anybody in high school ever taught what a nibble was? Not exactly ancient history. Though the computer couldn't do decimal numbers until I sprang for a whole new PCI card..
I had the whole net on a cd-rom but then I mounted it on the server..
Companies are evil little marketing empires and thats where the conspiracy lies, right? Although this sentiment is popular at slashdot it's not always true.
Bits has been the universal bandwidth measurement for quite some time. Infact all bandwidth lines are measured in bits and always has been. I'm sure that marketing people love this but it was something originally started by the engineers and not the marketing folks.
Hmmm... Pie...
dumbass
There is one problem with this. FilePlanet will still suck.
Because we're humans speaking English. The assumption when humans speak english is that all numbers are base 10 positive whole numbers, unless otherwise noted.
Well, I'm proud to be an American, I'll use base 12!