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."
They've been facing a major bandwidth crunch.
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
Not only that, it's a different metric, because it's leaving out the 'per second'. My response to the title "8.6GB Internet" was 'the internet is much bigger than 2 DVDs, more like tera or exabytes'.
Otherwise, who needs Internet connections if you can carry a copy of the whole Internet on 2 discs?
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
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.
Also a standard pc bus can not handle the load. This makes any card that can receive the signal at such a high speed useless.
Assumin its actually 8.6 bytes/sec and not bits like another poster suggested, the pci bus would become oversaturated since it can only transfer 3.2 gb/sec ( correct me if the transfer rate is wrong).
I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this. My guess is this speed will only be used as a backbone anyway so only large unix mini's or dedicated routers will send and recieve at 8.6/gbs. Sorry Johny you can not download porn at that speed.
http://saveie6.com/
Also, this page, at least, says it would take 88 TB = 704 Tb to digitize the LoC.
That's correct; 30.992 Tb/hour. With 1 LoC = 80 Tb, we now get 30.992 Tb/hour / 80 Tb =With the much larger figure of 1 LoC = 88 TB = 704 Tb, we get 30.992 Tb/hour / 704 Tb = .044 LoC/hour.
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.
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.
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
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!