Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record
Daniel de Kok writes "Researchers of the Swedish University Network
(SUNET) have beaten the Internet2 Land Speed Record using two Dell 2650 machines with single 2GHz CPUs running NetBSD 2.0 Beta. SUNET has transferred around
840 GigaBytes of data in less than 30 minutes, using a single IPv4 TCP stream, between a host at the Luleå
University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA. The
achieved speed was 69.073 Petabit-meters/second. According to the research team, NetBSD was chosen 'due to the scalability of the TCP code.'"
"More information about this record including the NetBSD configuration can be found at:
http://proj.sunet.se/LSR2/
The website of the Internet2 Land Speed Record (I2-LSR) competition is located at:
http://lsr.internet2.edu/"
...but don't the three main BSD projects use pretty much the same TCP/IP stack?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Fools, BSD is dea . . . oh, wait, what?
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
They will still get slashdotted.
Does this mean we've broken the "station wagon loaded with DVD's" barrier yet?
We can now DoS sites at even faster speed !
This signature was left intentionally blank.
Did they check for any inband compression? They data they're sending isn't randomised.
840GB/30 minutes = 466 MB/s, or 3,728 Mbps
Somebody should show Valentini this, I wonder what he'd say...
Val: "You students transfered how much?"
Sunnet: "About 30 movies a minute"
Val: "Un-fucking beli-Oh wait, I already said that..."
..transferring 840 gb of swedish porn across the pond. ;)
Use Minidisc? Join the Minidisc.org forums.
What is a petabit-meter?
Think of it like 3 meters per acregallon of footyards/second divided by hectares per ohm.
"According to the Internet2 LSR contest rule #5A, IPv4 TCP single stream"
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Thursday.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Perhaps because they wanted the data to arrive reliably?
UDP just sends off the data without caring whether it actually arrives intact at the other end, you know. TCP, on the other hand, actually gives delivery guarantees...
Actually, they data transfered across Sweden, part of Europe and then the United States which (according to them) took up 10,157 miles total.
Read the Fucking Summary ;)
That depends on whether the DVDs are in cases or not I think.
At 9.4 GB per DVD (Assume single-layer double-sided DVD-R), and a travel time of 3 weeks from Sweeden to California (2 weeks on the boat, one week of driving), you'd need to get about 90,000 DVDs in your station wagon to get an effective 1680 GB/hr. That wouldn't be possible if they were in cases, but if it was just the DVDs, it's probably a close call. Might have to upgrade to dual-layer DVD's, or change the saying to "an SUV full of DVD's".
On the other hand, if you count the time to actually read the data off of the DVDs (even worse if you count the time to put the data on the DVDs too), the station wagon of DVD's barrier was broken long ago - you probably couldn't spin a DVD fast enough to get 9.4 GB of data off it in 20 seconds.
paintball
Everything should be instant
I bet you were a little shithead when you were a kid.
I'm betting it's not a "land" speed record, seeing as how the data probably jumps through the air (satillite/microwave transmissions) at one or more points.
Nope. The vast majority of phone & data runs over fiber, without satellite or microwave. The latency on satellite is much worse, & microwave is more expensive. Fiber is the first choice.
(Not to mention the fact that being on, over, or under the surface of land or water means nothing to a data cable.)
Well, back when I worked for JDS Uniphase during the tech boom, there was a world of difference. Getting parts qualified for underwater cables was much harder. The cable owners don't want to have to send out a ship to pull a cable up off the ocean floor to fix it - it's very very expensive.
JDS had to guarrantee that they would make no changes in its production process without the approval of the customer, and JDS had to get similar guarrantees from its suppliers. Of course, JDS charged a lot more for undersea components, but reliability was much more important than cost.
And many customers would demand that the parts be made in North America - they wouldn't accept made in China or Taiwan.
Sigh. I miss working at JDS.
Not only did you not RTFA, you didn't read the *slashdot* article:
"between a host at the Luleå University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA."
This wasn't across Sweden, it was across the Atlantic Ocean and North America.
The Internet2 is a separate network running on IPv6. Currently it is being developed and tested between a veriety of universities, ballsy ISPs and a few buisnesses. Simply upgrading the current internet won't solve many of the problems. (like multicast) Supposedly once internet2 is doing really well, isps will slowly migrate until the old network is mosly gone.
Note, there are bridges between internet1 and internet2.
still held by Norway
sulli
RTFJ.
Man I hate to be on the recieving end of a Denial of Service attack on Internet 2. 900 gigabytes of data /30 min from multiple sourses would be crushing.
Veramocor
Actually google doesn't index a lot of /. because there aren't enough inter article links to find all the articles and because google just gets the default page setup a lot of comments are hidden, not to mention Google only indexes a certain amount of dynamic data from a particular site to avoid causing what was once called "the google effect" when a poorly designed web app on a slow server would be hammered as google crawled the catalog.
I remember the same thing being said about the actual Internet back in the mid-late 1980s. Academic playground, won't amount to much.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
how about we get 1MBS real downloadspeed in everyones home before we go shooting porn to reach ISP owners at the speed of light.
Hey buddy. Even on a 56k modem, you're still downloading your pr0n at pretty much the speed of light.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
More precisely, it went from
San Jose CA to
Stockton CA to
Kansas City MO to
Fort Worth TX to
Pennsauken NJ to
Relay MD to
Chicago IL to
New York NY to
Manasquan NJ to
Tuckerton NJ to
London UK to
Brussels BE to
Amsterdam NL to
Hamburg DE to
Copenhagen DK to
Oslo NO to
Stockholm SE (where it changed carriers) to
Vasteras SE to
Gavle SE to
Luleå SE.
Or maybe it was the other direction; the site doesn't say clearly which way the transfer was.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
They Stole Sprint's DS-3 cards!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Internet2 is a separate network in the same sense that Sprint and UUNET are separate networks. It's funded for academic use, and has a rigourously-enforced AUP which results in it not being used for commercial purposes at all. It is not an upgrade of the current Internet. The name "Internet2" does not signify "the replacement for the Internet"; if you're being charitible, it means "let's see how people use a multi-gigabit network if they don't have to pay for traffic". If you're being mean, it means "let's see if we can attract federal funding by sounding like we're exciting and important."
Many commercial networks (Level3 and UUNET spring immediately to mind) run commercial networks which are far closer to the bleeding edge than Internet2 is, in terms of the complexity of the routing system and the forwarding path. There are commercial operators who operate parallel 8xOC192 circuits which are routinely filled to near-congestion conditions 80% of the time (yes, that's an aggregate of 80Gbit/s between just two sites). The Internet is orders of magnitude more complex and advanced in terms of forwarding capacity than Internet2. There are commercial ISPs who sell production IPv6 services. There are more commercial ISPs who sell production IPv4 multicast services.
No ISPs will migrate to Internet2, since Internet2 is funded specifically for non-commercial traffic. There are no "bridges" between the private network known as "Internet2" and the Internet in the way that you imply; there are simply universities who are connected both to the private network called "Internet2" and to the Internet via commercial providers.
The private network known as "Internet2" is not an IPv6-only network. It does not feature a policy of shipping IPv4 traffic purely encapsulated within IPv6.
Hope this clears up a couple of things.
They might claim that NetBSD scales best, but it took some code changes to get it to do so (which have since been picked up and are included in the base).
:-)
The REAL reason for why they picked NetBSD is that Ragge (Anders Magnusson), the person doing a fair chunk of the testing, is heavily involved in the project and knows the code base. It was simply easiest to work with for him.
Linux has often been used to set records. The sure way to see Linux trashing BSD is to add more CPUs. Linux scales tolerably well to 512 processors now! The Linux IP stack is very well suited to SMP.
This NetBSD record is really about having insanely great Internet connections separated by thousands of miles.
Long ago, the Linux developers did look into adopting the BSD stack. At the time though, the BSD stack was incompatible with the GPL. Alan Cox asked Berkeley to re-license under the GPL, and was turned down. At this point in time, using the BSD code wouldn't make any sense.
Actually, the Linux IP stack buffer handling have a number of problem that the BSD stack do not suffer from. One is the inability to use a number of linked buffers in one packet (the "mbuf" style) so it allocates skbuff's (on a power-of-2-basis), another is that it must always do (at least) one datacopy even on transmission. This will result in that a machine with the Linux IP stack runs out of CPU much faster than with a BSD IP stack.