Slashdot Mirror
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
An anonymous reader writes "This article talks about 10 Gigabit Ethernet and asks, 'But just how much data can a person consume?' Currently at work, we're working on a major project to re-architect our core application platform so that the different systems can be de-coupled and hosted separately. The legacy design implicitly relies on systems being in the same LAN due to bandwidth-expensive operations (e.g., database replication). Having this much bandwidth would change the way we design. What would you do with this much bandwidth?"
1)Get more porn
2)Download linux dvds
3)FINALLY get the coveted First Post!
4)Download even more porn
1920x1080p, minimal compression, streamed...
HDTV recording...
Porn. Lots of porn.
Obvious isn't it?
This would be a boon for HD video workflows. I should think it would be attractive to companies like Pixar and the like.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
What would you do with this much bandwidth?"
Check out more unusual positions.
Doom III LAN party!
Build an entire slashdot-proof network!
Porn. And....uh... well, I guess porn. I mean, what else would that band be needed for?
I mean it's not worth playing if you don't have 1 or 2ms ping time...
ahh shit. missed it by a split second
Porn! (Score:0) It had to be said. Over, and over, and over.
The company I used to work for was sending very high resolution images from multiple cameras uncompressed from one unit to another to perform analytical operations on them. I think they manged to work at a gigabit, but 10 would be much nicer for them.
What would Joe Sixpack do with it? I'm not sure at the moment. Thing is, since we're working within our limitations today it's hard to concieve of whta use it'd be. However, what happens when it becomes commonplace? It does open doors. Imagine if cable companies traded in coax for ethernet. They could easily send uncompressed HDTV. That'd be pretty slick.
Woah! don't jump to conclusions! Wait...never mind, you're right.
It's true though that if the technology is there, someone will find a use.
good political satire
Typical desktops of the past few years see roughly ~25 megabyte/sec sustained disk throughput (more for SCSI and more recent ATA models). A switched 1 gigabyte/sec network could easily and transparently support 25 remote drives virtually indistinguishable from local storage.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
With that much bandwidth at my fingertips my dreams of taking over the world might become a reality.
Muahhha ahahahahahahahaha!
Slashdot taught me how to use the preview button!
Porn
At my place of employment we have a distributed build environment that can slow to a crawl sometimes. That's typically when I make my usual web-page rounds. If we had a network that fast I'm sure everyone could get more work done since the build bottleneck would no longer be the network but the build servers themselves (which are blazing fast :-).
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
You can use it as a backbone in a building. And in a few years, it will be less then enough for the common user. Remember...over time...most programs get bigger.
Remember back in the day, when someone would have a 10Mb switch, and it was amazing? And 100Mb switches were over the top? Well, now 1Gb switches are amazing, and 10Gb switches are over the top.
To me, this means online games can run better(provided ISPs upgrade there backbones as well...past whatever they are). P.S.-Yes, I know ISPs backbones are more then enough now, but I was stating for future.
You can never, EVER, download porn fast enough. There's no such thing as "enough bandwidth".
Oh ye of little imagination. Download every piece of music in the world. Every bit of art. Every scratch of writing.
It's true though that if the technology is there, someone will find a use.
And, if the internet and VHS are any indication; that "someone" will probably be the porn industry.
As long as I have this here jews-harp, I gots all the music I need. Readin'? Ain't nothin' but a bunch of devil scrawl no-how.
Just get us the bandwidth - we'll manage to piss it all away. Easy!
1G should be enough for anyone.
-- Nicholas Cravotta, 2004
640K should be enough for anyone.
-- Bill Gates, 1981
I worked for a medical imaging company and they would use it.
they are using gigabit already and you can see slowdown...simply put, a couple hundred 100MB+ x-rays to a single box.... multiply that by however many boxes the hospital has..and 10 gigabit is nice.
The problem hits in not having enough RAM..and with a 4GB limitation on workstation OS's for the most part this amount of bandwidth could get funky.
RoundTop
So if we cant use the extra bandwidth then whats the point of having it. You can already get 100 Mbps dedicated from a switch to the desktop with old technology
Damn, I left my good sig in my other pants
But just how much data can a person consume?
If I was going under the knife remotely, I'd want the surgeon to have as much bandwidth as possible (and very, very, very low latency).
Tweet, tweet.
"What every Slashdotter does - download porn!"
So the Slashdot population is exclusively, teenage males?
All electronic devices in the household or at the workplace(running Linux of course) linked together into a system capable of remotely running anything anywhere from anywhere else.
How about setup a digital broadcast network in my house?
Steal This Sig
Why? With that much pipe, it's everything at your fingertips, ture on demand entertainment would be possible. There'd be zero need to store it locally.
With 10 gigabit LAN, the bottleneck won't be the LAN. It will be your servers. Their I/O busses, disk systems etc.
Even at 1 gigabit, usually the bottleneck is elsewhere.
10 Gigabits = roughly 1 gigabytes/sec. Considering that PCI bus is 33MB/sec, and even PCI-X is 66MB/sec... Heck the memory bus of my brand new system is only about 1 gigabytes a second.
1. Slap 4 of them in a linux box.
2. Build a pretty case to rival CRS-1.
3. Undercut Cisco by god knows how much. Lots of profit.
"porn. Lots of porn" /Neo
architect is NOT a verb
I could definitely use this for transferring large amounts of video between my PC and my other PC that has a DVD burner. I suppose that companies like Pixar would be interested in this regard.
There are also companies (finacial, law, etc...) that could need to transfer huge documents (1000+ pages) between people. Huge databases could also be accesed better, I suppose.
Of course, Pr0n, pr0n and even more pr0n! (notice that I use pr0n instead of porn!)
:-P
Well, being an anime otaku, instead it'll be hentai, hentai and even more hentai!
Uuhhh, just imagine those tentacles!
Seriously, with that much of bandwidth available, the world keep getting smaller.. Sooner or later, it'll get crowded! Then'll we be in trouble.. Oh man!
It's either survival of the fittest, or... We go to 'Space.. The Final Frontier.. These are the voyages of...' you get my drift...
But when?
Will sys-admin for food
On my 8 different machines, at the same time...
Of course, each one is less than 1GHz, so being able to handle 10Gbit is not very likely. Damn, most of em' can't even max out 100Mbit, stupid slow harddrives...
That might be just enough bandwidth to get a life-like signal to the holographic projector!
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
i'd setup a usenet server.
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
The Windows operating system imposes one of the primary bottlenecks at this speed. As one network administrator says, "When we want to stress test our network, we use Linux, not Microsoft." His experience is that contention and file-system-overhead issues within Windows limits 1 GE desktop links to 1.25 Mbps. Even a quad-processor server peaks at 250 to 300 Mbps, with the processor at 100% usage.
Yeah I'm a snob, but at least my OS works.
"What would Joe Sixpack do with it? I'm not sure at the moment. Thing is, since we're working within our limitations today it's hard to concieve of whta use it'd be."
The Goatse.cx experience in holographic, 5.1 surround-sound, smello-tactile-vision.
OK, so for stuff like streaming MP3s and so forth, this is a little overkill for the current style of usage. However, where I think this will come in useful is for stuff like remote disk and memory access over IP.
:).
With a 10G LAN, you'd be able to come up with a great distributed computer system (e.g. for compiling software). IIRC protocols are in the works now for native-ish memory access over networks, turning a network into one huge computer, and you can already access remote disks with the right software. Imagine the simultaneous distributed encoding of several HDTV streams to redundant archives on several different computers, and you'll probably find that more bandwidth = better.
So yeah, there'll definitely be possibilities for this sort of stuff, even if it is only as a base requirement for the post-Longhorn Windows version
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
I would create and host my own linux disto, Pornix.
In short I'd have to replace all my NIC's and switches. That sucks. Considering that the move _recently_ made from 100Mbit to 1Gbit (LAN) with the steady 10Mbit uplink to the Internet.
:) simply couldn't handle the bandwidth. At the bus level or at the hard drive level. So in addition to replacing NIC's and switches we'd be completely replacing computers too. Not going to happen any time soon for the majority of the systems...
... I have no use for 10Gbit. Anywhere.
:)
The major problem (today) with 10Gbit? None of the sub-systems could handle the bandwidth. The absolutely rockin' stations with SCSI Ultra-320 (like my Mac @ home for example
Considering that I easily handle multiple VoIP lines and general Internet traffic along with video with the 10Mbit uplink to the Internet and constantly move data around which completely saturates the hard drive and bus bandwidth of the majority of local system
Yet.
This isn't 10Gbps to the outside world. It's 10Gbps on an ethernet. Who downloads porn from their companies intranet? If you do, then, are you guys hiring? ^_^
Seems like this would be useful for people trying to build clusters with commodity hardware.
For distributing intermediate results, I don't imagine there is such a thing as too fast.
While there are certainly applications that don't need to communicate that fast, more bandwidth means more alogrithms can become practical.
It's not like you can use it download porn, unless the action is happening in the next room. This is not a WAN technology.
On a simular note, what would you do with 640k?
architect Audio pronunciation of "architect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärk-tkt)
n.
1. One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
2. One that plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief architect of war in the Middle East.
So, we used to have little dumb terminals that talked to the big smart backend. Then computer became cheaper and we had Personal Computers, but we have to manage and distribute all these updates and it's a real pain and it sometimes destroys your computer during the upgrade/install process. Now we can swing the pendulum back towards the Network Computer a little more.
This isn't a new idea. Software companies like MS would love to sell you a subscription to MS Office which you renew and they in turn patch and maintain the software on your company's server or on the MS servers. It's a neat idea for sure. Companies like Novel have made some interesting claims about Network Computers.
There is also the whole Plan9 type of mentality too.
Sam
Why, I'd go on i2hub ofcourse
10Gb Ethernet is great bandwidth but what is the latency? Latency is how long it takes a packet to get from one end of the pipe to the other. Bandwidth is how much data can be put on the wire per second.
For example, think of what happens if I put a bunch of hard drives in my car's trunk and drive across town. The data per time is 60Tb/10min = 100Gb (lots of bandwidth), but the amount of time to transfer the first bit is 10min (long latency).
Some applications need one and other applications need others. For example remote backups or file transfers need lots of bandwidth, but steamming video or online games need low latency. Just don't for get to pay attention to the *other* network spec, latency.
I honestly cannot understand the Slashdot crowds (or maybe a selects few's) obsession with pornography. I read the title to this article and was reminded that the ensuing discussion would be centered around the act of "downloading more and more porn." Seriously gentleman, move beyond the teenage years and enter into a discussion that isn't focused around the act of parading women. Sorry, it isn't funny, intelligent, and I think most readers would say that you are simply embarassing yourself.
"Close" applies both in physical distance (I have to count picoseconds for the kind of stuff I do) and in network distance, since every router adds considerably.
For some jobs (backup is a classic) latency is relatively tolerable. However, even for those you have to watch out because one error can cause the whole process to back up for retries. Ten to the minus fifteen BER sounds good until you look at what it can do to your throughput in a long-latency environment.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"WHile it will be pissed away at first, somebody will suddenly come up with an innovative idea that requires hire speed.[emphasis mine]"
A freudian slip if I ever heard one.
Beaming your body around the planet will eat that bandwith right up.
when I saw the news item.
I mean... there's no such thing as too much of anything in computers. When's the last time you said "Accursed be this high transfer rate" or "I wish the computer had less RAM so it would swap more!".
Come on.
we have several servers at work that tar.bz2 themselves up nightly and then scp the large .tar.bz2 file over to another server connected to an 8 tape autoloader. all the servers go through a copper cisco gigabit switch and even at gigabut speeds you are topping out at about 23megabytes/sec and transfering a 20GB+ file at this speed still takes several minutes. The servers all use raid 0 and can read faster then 23megabytes/sec so the quicker it can be transfered to the tape connected backup server the better.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Donald Duck is going to have a SCREAMING ORGASM when he downloads Daisy Duck pr0n at 10Gbps and sees how hot she is OMG OMG OMG
Listen in on Donald Duck!
We use lots of shared drives, remote desktop applications, X traffic, moving core files, database dumps, email with very large attachments (exchange to boot).
:)
We migrated to 100meg, it was like night and day, and we still need more. We finally got 1gig to IT's network, and still to slow to push files with lots of users.
We have a burstable OC192 to our 2nd remote datacenter, OC48/12's to the smaller datacenters. But this is for production networks that need bandwidth, not desktop usage.
Also, my buddy in Japan just told me he got 100Meg DSL, the stuff you can do when bandwidth isn't a concern. Already Internet TV stations popping up there, amazing. Can't wait for this to catch on in the US. I just upgraded to 6M DSL from speakeasy, and its too fast for fileplanet.
Speed kills
stupid moderators.
women find sex repulsive, and so do anyone beyond the age of nineteen.
/.
Except one of my friends. She just borrowed a porn VHS from her teenage brother. Then again, she doesn't read
You won't actually have to control the orcs, the mere sight of them on your screen will initiate instant lag-death for people with lesser video cards.
Machine9dotNet
Crunchy frog, the crunchy frog.
If you're consuming 10Gbit, you've got a problem. I suggest you contact OverEthers Anonymous. They helped me see that I was just trying to drown my problems with .torrents of information.
But now...I just take it one data at a time.
why is it that network and modem speeds are measured in bits per second but hard disk space and ISP download limits are in BYTES?
I want to know at 10Gbps, how many Meg per hour is that? How long would it take to blow my ISP download limit (4GB) or fill up the hard disk (120GB)?
If I tune into an online radio at 20bps - how many MB is that per hour? Even worse are the audio or video files available for download that say they are "five minutes long" but don't bother mentioning how many Bytes or bits at all.
It's not quite as bad as trying to convert from Metric to American Imperial measurements which are not the same as English Imperial measurements but not far off.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
Now that I've answered your question...did I miss much?
"The major problem (today) with 10Gbit? None of the sub-systems could handle the bandwidth. The absolutely rockin' stations with SCSI Ultra-320 (like my Mac @ home for example :) simply couldn't handle the bandwidth. At the bus level or at the hard drive level. So in addition to replacing NIC's and switches we'd be completely replacing computers too. Not going to happen any time soon for the majority of the systems..."
Let's see. 64 bit computing...check
PCI-X...next year.
SATA in RAID...check.
IEE1394...check, Latest...next year.
Screaming video cards...check.
I'd say we're closer than people think.
What would you do with this much bandwidth?
A killer app, but if I told you about it, you'd write it before I do.
100 Megabytes per chromosome
x 23 chromosomes per gamete
x 20 million gametes per ejaculation
Therefore Ms. Lewinsky can consume roughly 46,000,000,000 megabytes
(assuming that there is no overflow to a dress)
How much can you consume?
As a CCIE, I have been designing networks for years. I have analyzed traffic to/from desktops and watched traffic to the average desktop never even get above 27mbps. This is due to the average file size of the transfer which is rarely above 10 megabytes. At 10 megs, it only takes a few seconds to get it transfered and it only has a few seconds to get up to speed, by the time it gets all revved up, the file transfer is complete.
High-end workstations such as CAD with gigabit connections, working with 500 mb files, or multi-gigabit video files will occasionally reach 500 to 600 mbps, and even then only for a couple of seconds. At these speeds, power users can use that network connection as if it were a local drive, because at those speeds you are matching the speed at which you're reading/writing data to your local hard drive.
The only time I've ever seen near gigabit traffic at a steady pace was at network servers, where traffic can reach a steady 600mbps on a single gig link - which is maxing out the speed at which the server drive can read/write data to its hard drive. Think of it this way, a 1 gigaBIT link can transfer a 1 gigaBYTE file in about 10 seconds, that's FAST! Conversely, it takes nearly 20-30 seconds just to write that large a file to the hard drive.
Now, on a Cisco 6500 core switch, or a Cisco GSR 12000 where traffic is aggregated, these are the only places where I've actually seen multi-gigabit traffic rates, and that was across the switch fabric - not all directed to a single interface.
The 12000 GSR already has a 10gb interface, it is a single line card that takes up a full slot. It sells for about $60,000 and is used to move data from the switch fabric of one GSR to another GSR, which means you need to put in 2 of them at a mere $120,000 to get the two connected.
Moving to optical links, you can get up to 36Gbps using Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing on multimode fiber. This uses several colors of laser light to transmit multiple 'channels' across a single fiber link.
Even at these tremendous speeds, they are only used at traffic aggregation points, again because any network device, even a turbocharged SAN couldn't handle reading/writing at those speeds for anything longer than a quick burst.
I say this: If you think that 10gig/sec is your answer, you're looking at the wrong problem. You can get the performance you need at gigabit rates.
I'm not saying that we'll never need 10gigabit to the desktop, just not until we solve the hard drive bottleneck. Solid state storage could solve the problem, but we'd need to have solid state drives that store 100gb of data in order to match the throughput of the network.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Even if we do run into a situation where the network is faster than the server I think we will then see the true power of P2P, distributed computing, server farms and the like.
Imagine a corporate environment where every machine is the file server, storing some pieces to the puzzle? We don't have to rely on backups as often since data is redundantly stored all over the network. Huge servers (big proc, big disk, big ram) may not be needed as much since the big pipe and a lot of small workstation servers are taking the load. I mean really, most users do not use the power of the new desktops coming out.
Even processing tasks can be distributed out to other machines once the network is fast enough. Just in my own group our project takes a minute or so to compile clean. I imagine being able to spread that task across the desktops of the other 5 developers? Or across the desktops of the other 500 employees of the company?
If are law makers don't fark things up, this "future" thing people talk about could be really cool!
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
getting rid of that annoying coworker...well atleast temporarly. ping -l 102400000000 [insert annoying coworker's ip here]
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
High quality video phones, they had it in Back to the Future. But then again they had fax machines in every room...
How about useable internetwork file systems?
or better yet, how about cheap internet terminals that connect to operating system server mainframes which can connect to other inter-network file systems?
How about completly distibuted systems? Operating systems, filesystems and applications all hosted on different servers?
I think this is the future that Microsoft has been waiting for, the day when you would no longer purchase an OS but rather rent the OS through partner servers.
Dude, what *is* it with the porn meme? There's like 15 comments to that effect already in this thread, before it broke 50 comments. If every slashdotter was as dedicated/addicted to downloading pr0n as is stereotype goes, the whole freakin' internet would have been DDOSd long ago.
Yeah, I know it's popular, but geez. Not all of us are spending our time gazing and wanking. Some of us actually code (and even talk to women!)
I hereby banish this to the Beowulf cluster of memes, along with Soviet Russia/Hot Grits/Profit!
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
10 GBps doesn't strike me as all that much. For example its still puny compared to the speed the data is beeing passed around on the main board.
At the current rate I would predict that our 100mbit switches/routers will be the bottle necks of our internet connections within the next 2-3 years. So an upgrade to 1 gbps switching gear / nics is forseeable but compared to the jump from isdn to broadband, IPv4 to IPv6 or 32 bit address space to 64 bit address space its rather a step forward then a new era.
IDE over IP. Yes, it does exist.
Better VOIP would be nice. Maybe even for the home depending on upload rates.
'But just how much data can a person consume?'
10 years ago, our school was trying to decide whether or not to upgrade its bank of 2400 baud modems. the guy leading the student advisory board replied "no - spend it somewhere else. just how fast can one person read?"
i really hate people like that.
K.
I would spend the first few hours probably doing nothing more than taking cd's and dvds converting them into iso's and trying to clog up the network throuwing them around. After amazing myself with the speed and finding myself content I would probably have to find a few of the fastest machines ont he network and ping flood the slowest one i could find then run over to it and see if it effects how fast notepad opens. Then I would setup a vnc conection to see if 10Gbps would allow me to use it form machine to machine without lag. After all of theat I would get a couple of my friends together for a nice lan game. This process would be repeated for the first week or so until the newness wore off. Then I would take the time to learn first hand if the increase in wire speed actualy effected the performance of most machines seeing as how it is difficulat for some memory to keep up with those speeds the only obvious application for such bandwidth is for backbone services.
'cos I'll tell ya; I think this will be the bee's knee's for downloading scatporn.
It had to be said.
It was.
your harddrive is too slow ;p
We'll soon be getting an x-ray microtomography instrument. This 3-D CAT scanner with a 4k x 4k CCD produces 3-D image datasets of small objects down to a 5 um resolution. A full dataset can run 270GB! We'll be purchasing a RAID and a dedicated tape library to handle the data.
However, we'll also be doing lots of analysis of that data on multiple machines throughout the lab...and you have to move that data somehow!
10GigE is what I'd use as a backbone between buildings, metro area networks, etc.
Come in real handy if GigE rollouts to the desktop start happening.
And before anyone starts spouting off about maximum 100m spans, I'm talking 10GigE over fiber
-transiit
General rule of thumb is that you need 1 Hz of processing power for every bps of traffic you need to Tx or Rx.
"So, we used to have little dumb terminals that talked to the big smart backend."
Those were known as blond secretaries.
"Now we can swing the pendulum back towards the Network Computer a little more."
They're BACK!!
Its latentency you have to be worried about for distrubted applications and all the bandwidth in the world doesnt fix that. Want to play doom over remote x terminals? Its not so much the bandwidth but the latentcy on the network you need.
Had some pretty slick security cams installed in them from the beginning (~3-4 years ago) - but they couldn't use them. Why? Not enough bandwidth to send the images uncompressed. Which was what they had set them up to do. Solution? Turn off cameras. Wait a few years for more funding.
Ya know, so far everyone seems to think of this as a long distance pipe. It's not, it ethernet. RTFA useful distance is in meters *NOT* kilometers. This is an intraoffice connection not a WAN pipe.
That's DISGUSTING!
Several hundred megabyte patches.
Oh.
cuz, like, my ping would rule
Frag lots and frag often.
if i had any mod points i'd hit that up! informative to tha snobby married man!
"The 12000 GSR already has a 10gb interface, it is a single line card that takes up a full slot. It sells for about $60,000 and is used to move data from the switch fabric of one GSR to another GSR, which means you need to put in 2 of them at a mere $120,000 to get the two connected."
Economics will always triumph technology.
"I'm not saying that we'll never need 10gigabit to the desktop, just not until we solve the hard drive bottleneck. Solid state storage could solve the problem, but we'd need to have solid state drives that store 100gb of data in order to match the throughput of the network."
MRAM.
How much data can a person consume?
As much data as can be provided.
Remember the 640Kb barrier? As soon as it was broken, we found ways to use the larger amounts of memory available to us. Same thing happens to bandwidth.
Remember people used think twice before downloading a small sound clip on a 28.8 modem, but think nothing of torrenting a movie on a 768 Kbps DSL link.
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
Its so sexy, but all they will let me do is run the fiber for it.
I hope they don't let your near any of the equipment unsupervised...
I'm sure everyone wanted to know what we would do with 10Mbps too...
Screens and cams in every room, long business trip, miss S.O. at home... Video calls...
(In other words... true, 10Gb per second isn't available from New York to Hong Kong today... but in 2014, that'll be standard... if not so-three-years-ago.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"The fact that I just corrected you is pretty sad as well."
Not as sad as you spending time counting your sperm.
While I can't say where, I have seen 10Gbps ethernet running at full line rate on a 16lane PCI Express card.
All I can say is WOW. It was quite amazing. However, we are a long way off from seeing normal usage.
10Gbps is really only needed for areas where data merges. For example, would you rathat have 10 interfances bounded together? Or just have one? 10Gbps will take off from a ease of management and port desity.
So for the most part we are just talking about telcom, banks, government, and brocast groups.
It will be a long time before you will see/need this in your PC or laptop.
On the telcome side, I can tell you that I know of several companies working very hard to start shipping these products in volume due to pressure from the telcoms and their customers.
There is demand for this, and it's growing.
- It allows distributed computing. 10gb/sec bandwidth is higher than the bandwidth between the CPU and memory in most PCs. With "Ethernet" like that, you could have a group of PCs all sharing a large chunk of memory, or extra CPUs, or other resources. Of course, the bandwidth is only one part of the infrastructure needed to make that happen, but it's part of it.
- Continuing the topic above, it would be great for parallel/cluster computing. Some problems parallelize easily and don't require lots of interaction among nodes. Looking for hash collisions, for example, needs only low bandwidth among nodes. But other parallel tasks, like fluid modeling, do require high bandwidth. 10gbps "Ethernet" would make that easier, and if it's a commodity networking system, it will be the cheapest way to build super computers.
- Of course, it's great for backbones. Why bother with Sonet when you can use "commodity" "Ethernet" instead?
Applications involving shared computing resources will definitely require plenty of other infrastructure, including (especially) software infrastructure. I'm using the word "Ethernet" in quotes above because this protocol doesn't really have much in common with Ethernet other than the name and the fact that it uses frames.Can you say targeted DDoS attack?
Slashdot the internet?
Download more porn and music, slashdot RIAA website and then DDoS their servers so they will never find out?
My currest boss used to be one of the chief IT people at Hostway (webhosting company) according to him he was in an optimal position, and had enough power and bandwithd, to DDoS anything he wanted to (provided it was connected to the net of course). I believe 10 GBit was about the size of Hostway backbone at the time. According to him he also worked at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaine and wrote parts of the original Mosaic (web browser), but that's just selfish bragging.
That should keep such line very busy for some time...
There you are, staring at me again.
Things like bandwidth are enabling technologies. In themselves they do little, but just by existing, they allow a all of the inventive minds out there the freedom to create and to progress.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The broadcast industry has realized the threat of DIY entertainment and has since crammed their programming full of it to try and burn it out. However, they have been forced to try and appeal to the greatest number of people, and therefore pursued the lowest common denominator (LCD). Sure, sex sells, and so does violence, but after so much of it, people tend to become immune to it. People want truth and reality and story more than they want high priced, over produced, LCD bullshit.
I look forwared to the time when I can drill down into a million nooks and crannys. I want to watch shit produced by weirdos and passionate freaks. You know, the kind of stuff that would only appeal to a select few.
That's why the bandwidth is necessary. People will start making their own entertainment, and distribute it for free, because its fun, and people want to express themselves. After all, they have watched all those VH1 episodes about "Where are they now?" and have realized that you can be a successful artist without the middle man.
Uh, sorry for the rant. Mod this post "troll" or something.
Ideally, you'd need even more than 10 Gbps for the perfect user interface.
Such irE
Finally would be able to keep up with all the windows security fixes.
Let's see. There are about a million pixels on my screen (1280 x 800). Assume 24 bit color, so that's 24 megabits per frame.
... lots of things could be externalized and generalized. This would also allow more devices to be shared across networks more easily, since they're *on* the network in any case. With the Internet, nobody cares about the physical location of the machines they access; likewise, with this system peripherals aren't associated as strongly with one specific computer.
This at 60 fps will be 1.44 Gbps.
So 10-Gbps ethernet is enough to stream the output of a monitor, *uncompressed*, at full framerate, to either a dumb terminal or another computer. Even the most elementary compression (only reporting changed pixels, or PNG/jpeg techniques) could cut this to a fraction of 1.44Gbps.
More generally, it could allow more of the things that are currently on the PCI/USB bus to become external, and could become a more flexible replacement for USB. Scanners, cd writers, audio devices, you name it
This sort of thing might also have applications for cluster computing, allowing more sorts of things to be done with clusters since you have higher inter-node bandwidth.
How about how much information can someone serve?
Off the very top of my head I can think of a couple of ways for me to digest huge amounts of data over the internet. For one, how about a noncompressed HDTV stream?
What about video games that don't require a hard drive (and are then more secure)?
Hell, how about loosing the hard drive altogether and just having a dumb terminal?
Nah, asking how much data can one person consume is a lot like saying that building a hard drive over 20 gigs is stupid cause it will never be filled.
The real question is how much data can one person (or a company) serve?
Back to the idea of uncompressed HDTV content. If HBO decided to put such a thing on the web for subscribers how many unique subscribers could it possibly hope to serve at a time?
Seems to me that asking a server to supply many streeams of these uber bandwith apps at once would be problematic.
my biggest chunk of porn has been copied from my flatmate ^_^
I understand that they're struggling somewhat and they've taken bailout loan guarantees from the feds and there was talk of Chapter 11 filing. And yes, from their sec filings you can see they're putting greater pressure on their fleet/staff. But I figure they are the second largest low-fare carrier, next to Southwest, which is really the only airline kicking butt and taking names at this point, and they don't appear to be hiring for the kind of job I want (pricing/yield/revenue management), while America West does. And also, lean times at a company can present a real opportunity to distinguish yourself by merit.
But feel free to email me further if you've got more inside scoop. If I'd be walking into not just a challenge but a really adverse environment, I'd definitely be interested to hear about it (I would have emailed you already, but you don't have an address listed, so...)
Tweet, tweet.
I'm sure I missed a few things, but I hope i hit all the important ones.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I remember times sitting behind a PC and wondering how the hell I am going to fill up the 20Mb of my smart card harddisk just plugged into my XT. Hell, I got them filled up eventually ;-) - so don't you worry.
by Masami Eri on Saturday July 24, @11:30PM
And with the Psyche processer I received today, I will be able to rule the world!
Oh, wait....
The most common uses for this: long-haul video transfer, massive network file systems, and extremely high-volume internet servers. Massive distributed private file systems and applications are hot, and will be a major driver of high-performance fiber ethernet fabrics.
For most purposes, a properly architected network will add almost no real latency beyond what is required due to physical limits i.e. the speed of light. Regional ethernet fabrics should be easily sub-millisecond between any two points in the region, which is quite adequate for most applications that might be amenable to being networked to begin with. Most people still think of networks in terms of routing bottlenecks and other topology biasing issues like that, but large-scale ethernet fabrics, an increasingly popular choice for network providers big and small, make most of these issues go away for a lot of purposes and mitigate the performance hit for most others. 10G will just make ubiquitous ethernet fabrics that much more scalable.
I'm still waiting for decent DSL, since I'm
on 30 year old buried POTS wiring that's 5
(plus) miles away. Fiber to terminal point
will not happen here before hell freezes over,
since the Baby Bells are not spending that
kind of money.
However, with that kind of bandwidth to the
internet, I could set up some homebrew web
sites, and telecommute to work, and go back
to (online) school all at the same time.
I hate to be repetitious, but that kind of
infrastructure would allow some really great
collaborative (beowolf?) computing.
"Don't worry about it, just provide us with the bandwidth and we'll figure out a way to use it."
Seriously, there's really no telling WHAT will take off until people get their hands on it, start tinkering, and start doing things.
For starters, how about upping the quality of the media we transfer? Storage space is increasing and becoming cheaper, coupled with this there really will be no reason to keep cruddy 128kbps mp3s and low rez divx files around. People will start switching to lossless quality formats once the storage and bandwidth increase to usable amounts and lower respectively in price.
So, aside from all the potential new uses that people will invent for this bandwidth, you can ALWAYS assume that people will just take what they currently do with their current bandwidth, and just upgrade it in size till it works well with the improved bandwidth. Its practically a given.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I'll be building DRBD clusters in a blink of an eye.
Actually I already do on 1gbps
Redundancy is good.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
4.7 Gig for a 2 hour DVD is under 6Mbps.
The average consumer probably won't buy more than 10Mbps.
Sure, we'll all want 10Gbps, but not many would be willing to pay extra for it (unless someone comes up with something even more bandwidth intensive than video).
A publisher might need more overall, but they can probably get by just fine with 100Mbps and a contract that requires subscribers to run something like bit torrent.
-- less is better.
Perhaps it is like water. A person that grew up in the desert where water was scarce and critical to life could hardly imagine the fundamental changes that an abundance of water would cause. If asked what their life would be like with more water, they would probably think, "Wow, I could drink a billion gallons a day if I wanted to," when the real value comes instead from things like sanitation and the use of water in the creation of other goods.
So, while I agree that we'll see a lot of high-bandwidth media files use the new bandwidth, I also believe that we'll start rethinking the fundamental bandwidth scarcity assumptions that we've made and begin to design new protocols and data formats accordingly. There could be cascading results from it, as well, reaching into politics, education, and economics. I doubt the Earth will suddenly become a paradise, but it has the potential to improve things on a lot of different levels.
Instead of your site having 1-2 underutilized hard drives in every computer waiting to break down, you can consolidate everything into a single server. Less noise, heat and power usage. Much easier to deploy extra storage capacity for multiple users and back it all up.
You can set up dumb terminals capable of running any game that the server can handle by streaming the video and sound over the lan. Who cares how noisy the PC runs when it's down in the basement running your game of Far Cry that you're playing upstairs. Probably on par with watercooling your CPU, GPU and mobo chipset.
I would really like it if I could pick up a few diskless laptops with USB, a 15 inch screen, 64 MB ram and 400mhz(?) processor for $200 that would connect to a master desktop server. Drop them around the house to use as picture frames, TVs, music players, game machines, or web access. The only limit is the power of the master server that they all connect to.
Distribute HDTV video around the house.
Why does this guy get modded down when the other 20 "Umm.. duh... pr0n" comments before him get 5+ Funny?
Ethernet isn't really deterministic, but it gets more predictable as the traffic drops. So with a really fat pipe, you can send your pr0n or whatever and be reasonably confident they'll be finished by the time something else needs to be transmitted. Which simplifies things like machine control.
Because this has been asked before. Just like "Dude, Gigahertz? Why would we even need that?", and "50 gig hard drive? What the hell would you fill that up with?". The answer is: We'll know what to do with it when we get there.
...We've already got 10Gigabits. What we do with it? I've not seen it go above 15 Megabits yet and we've had it in for a year.
That's an excellent point -- no point in opening the throttle outside of the motherboard if there's still a pipe into the machine that can't handle the flood.
Tweet, tweet.
How about cluster the video output buffers of all my machines in like a giant beowulf SLI so I can run doom3 faster than slideshow?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
ONE ACRONYM PEOPLE "SAN"
storage area networks. at 10Gb/s, SAN's are not a slow data storage medium, but an ultra fast storage medium, that may ever be faster that your local hard drive.
OR, how about full diskless clients, with BIOS manufactures being able to map specific locations on the network to a local harddrive via something like NBD(network block device) or some next-gen NFS. at 10Gb/s, your datatransfer is 1.164GBytes/s, minus overhead, lets say %25 to be safe, or just short of a GIGABYTE/s. how fast is your local hard drive? with a SAN, your could run a very fast RAID5 setup, with a rediculously large cache and have nearly instantanios access to 1,000s of large files. transfer a full DVD in 5-10 seconds, boot your machines faster because of increased datarates.
-
CLUSTERING software. imagin a beow...., how about openmosix!, with 30 desktops running linux, all with an openmosix kernel and a very high speed interconnect, each user would feel like they are on a supercomputer when rendering digital media, encoding video or audio, compiling programs etc. You would basically be using CPU's like ISPs use bandwidth, each user feels like they have a faster connection even thought they are being oversold bandwidth, idle users give up spare cycles for greedy users to prosper.
-
also, ethernet attatched expansion devices. Need a new sound card? need one to run the loby music system and want your server to handle it? Ethernet Attatched Expansion Port(EAEP), plug the device in, connect to it accross the network, and hit play on xmms!
EAEP scanners and video cameras = awesome. 1 640x480 camera compressing plain mpeg1 video can saturate a 100Mbps network pretty quickly, 3 or 4 can bog down a 1000Mbps, with 10Gbps, you can get 25-30 without boging down your network.
-
HDTV delivery, speeds like this would allow High Definition media delivery without bandwidth pains
So try and imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
Yay, I know, that's why it's posted AC!
we're working on a major project to re-architect our core application platform
Perhaps your first project should be learning English. As one person said, "verbing weirds language."
steve
Today's "ethernet" doesn't have limitations - it is really only referring to a frame format.
The distance limitations were initially related to running ethernet in half duplex mode, due to the requirement for all devices to be able to detect a collision.
Now that ethernet is run in full duplex the distance limitations due to collision detection have gone.
Distance limitations in "ethernet" are now related to physical media the ethernet frame format is carried over at the specified clock rate. In most cases, cost is providing a constraint, in the sense that longer distances can sometimes be achieved over the same media, however the costs to do so rise dramatically, such that the technology might be priced out of the market it is intended for.
For example, from memory, Cisco have been selling a variant of 1Gbps Ethernet for at least four years now called "1000BaseZX". It would reach around 90 000 metres over single mode fiber. From memory though, the GBICs (Gigabit Interface Converters) were $12 000 US each or something like that, and you needed one per end of the link. And that would be really, really, really cheap when compared with the cost of the 90 000 metres of single mode fibre.
I don't know if the article mentions any distances for 10Gbps, at the moment it has been slashdotted to death.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
i feel as though this article were challenging my skills...ph34r. Generally i will match my net usage to my conenction, but given a decent broadband connection i will quite effectively Rape the Internet. Flashget makes mass-downloadings so much easier.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
We're still stuck with voice-only phones. One day we'll look back at these times and wonder how in the world we survived without video-phones.
Ok, let's say we start giving people 10 or 100 meg internet access (this is already happening all across the world). When you start to aggregate thousands of these users, you really need 10Gig at least. How much do these people want to pay for their bandwidth? As little as possible.
Therefore the problem currently is not access speed or even intra-metro speed, it's the core long haul speed that is being crunched, or at least the cost of it. Another poster referred to $120k as being a "mere" cost for OC192 interfaces. This cost is WAY WAY too high (now, the list price of OC192 cards for the Cisco GSR is $225k per card, but that's another matter). Transporting bits long distances right now is cheaper than production cost because of the 2000 bubble buildout still hasn't run out of capacity, but we're getting there now. The cost of bw right now (can be as low as $15-25 per month per megabit of capacity) doesn't pay for the manpower and interfaces to move the bits long distances.
10Gig is not enough for the core, 40gig for SONET is getting close but won't be enough either, soon.
Already at 10gig you're running into all kinds of optical problems such as dispersion and so on, which needs to be handled. At 100Gig it's going to be quite a lot more problematic, if possible at all (you need to go 60-80km without repetition).
100meg internet access is enough for users, 10gig is enough for intra-metro, it's the inter-metro and international bw I'm worried about, and access speed isn't of as much use if you can only get good speeds within the same city as you're in.
What would you do with this much bandwidth?
How about moving all harddisks to somewhere I can't hear them?
0x or or snor perron?!
I saw some comments here saying Gigabit Ethernet is enough. There's nothing we can do with 10GbE.
;-)
/whatever to access a UNIX fileserver on the other, we'd all be able to rig up a very nifty setup, and use the combined speed of all our harddrives at home.
I beg to differ. Sit tight.
Here's an idea for you geeks that for some reason nobody is busy doing yet.
Quite a few IT people I know run some form of Linux or BSD server at home, doing a variety of stuff from fileserver to firewall to mail/DNS server etc., though on their desktops they run 2K or XP for reasons such as gaming, simplicity, wife, and so forth.
Here's the idea. Pool all your harddrives at home on the Linux/BSD box, configure a software RAID-5, share it using samba and network-boot all the 2K/XP machines at home from this network-attached storage. Using Gig ethernet of course.
What do you get? Every box gets a system drive "Drive C" that can go at 100MBytes/sec. RAID-5 redundancy for all your machines at home. Harddrives, which generate heat and noise are no longer in your computers.
The benefits are enormous.
There's a small con though - you won't be able to drag your computer to a LAN-party (unless you drag the server too
Currently there is a shortage of one element though: Software that can boot Win2K/XP using PXE from a fileserver. Such software exists in the commercial world and is made by a french company called Qualystem, which doesn't sell it in less than 1-server+25-client licenses, which costs a whopping 2750Euro. They show zero interest in smaller clients. A second product, Venturcom BXP, does the same but falls short as it has a dedicated server that only runs on 2K/XP/2K3 - no BSD/Linux with SAMBA for you.
If someone in the open-source community were to pick this glove up and write a small driver that emulates a harddisk for 2K/XP on one side (the kind you throw in for a RAID controller by pressing F6 when installing windows), and uses SMB
We'd also realize that Gigabit Ethernet is not enough, as a cheap 4-modern-ATA-drive RAID5 setup (which effectively streams enough data to store on 3 of them, one of the four being used to store parity info at any given moment) writes at 40MByte/Sec x 3 = 120MByte/Sec, and reads at 60MByte/Sec x 3 = 180MByte/Sec.
The Gigabit Ethernet _will_ pose a bottleneck.
If we add more drives, the bandwidth requirement broadens.
There's also the small issue of the PCI bus, your server must have its ethernet off the PCI bus, like in Intel's 875 chipset, nVidia's nForce 250 or on a PCI-Express card. Otherwise the IDE and GB will choke each other on the too-narrow PCI bus.
Anyway. once people start doing this, 1000BaseT is back to where 100BaseTX has been for 5 years - choking. I say - Bring on 10GbE!
-
How about Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, with hot grits...in Japan?
Peace and love, y'all
You, individually, are highly unlikely to use this bandwidth for anything. Same goes for gigabit Ethernet.
They're aimed for backbone technologies rather than distribution/access technologies (i.e. to the desktop). Of course extreme cases like mentioned will use it but I'm suprised the Cisco guy above didn't pick this up as the whole 3-layer network concept (in terms of backbone, distribution, access) is a Cisco concept.
What you would use it for, is running 100x100mbit workstations without saturating the backbone of your network when lots of them are transmitting/receiving simultaneously.
Future proofing is of course a good idea, but this can easily be done with things like blown fiber and has been possible for a while.
Cat6500 4-port 10 Gigabit Ethernet Module (req. XENPAKs) WS-X6704-10GE= $20000
10GBASE-LR XENPAK module XENPAK-10GB-LR= $4000
The first 10G modules were -very- expensive, those however are positively cheap.
The backplane link into the 6500 isnt that fantastic, nowhere near the 40G potential of the 4 10G ports in the card, that's my only gripe. (though of course the card can do local L2/L3 switching)
some more prices to put it in perspective...
Cat6500 48-port 10/100/1000 GE Mod: fabric enabled, RJ-45 WS-X6748-GE-TX= $15000
Catalyst 6500 48-port 10/100, RJ-45, x-bar WS-X6548-RJ-45= $17995
Cat6500 16-port GE,2 fab I/F,DFC3A for SUP720 ONLY(Req GBIC) WS-X6816-DFC3A= $30000
That 10G line card is -far- from expensive.
(prices taken from the official cisco price list)
I have enough trouble keeping enough storage space on our SAN and NAS boxes as it is, now if things move to 10Gbps I'll never get to sleep for the pager going off to tell me that "volume is 95% full" ... it's far too easy to overwhelm the infrastructure as it is without making it 10 times easier! :-(
For one, fast ethernet cards are nice for clusters, not only because
they can transfer lots of data between the cluster nodes, but just as much
because of latency. Think e.g. MPI programs passing lots of small
messages between processes; the faster the better.
What a person consumes is irrelevant, at what speeds a file can be copied is irrelevant. What is relevant is how fast processes can migrate to other nodes in my openmosix cluster.
Would it be possible now to transfer video from video card to monitor over such a large pipe - without loss?
Depending on the cost (and advertising capability), I'd think about running a Slashdot Cache...
Somewhere that you could prefetch a web site before an article gets posted so you could take some or all of the brunt of the Slashdot Effect (tm).
Or perhaps hook it into the Akamai network to distribute the load even further. Give each site a 24 hour TTL, should be enough for most topics.
Nothing is so smiple that it can't be screwed up.
I don't understand why everyone is so impressed with that post. Insightful? I'd say thats just common knowledge.
How fast can your processor communicate with your RAM?
How fast can that ram communicate with the HDD?
How fast can your computer connect to the LAN?
How fast can your LAN communicate with the internet?
See what I mean? It's pretty common understanding that the farther you wanna go, the slower things get.
Well, I guess its not that common since you all modded that +5. I am disappointed in all of you. You are not geeks. Go away.
How much can you consume?
None... I spit.
- Connect backbone LAN switches, e.g. two Cisco 6500 machines, each one full of Gigabit links to access/distribution switches.
- High-speed links for ISPs or research networks. 10GE can reach about 70 km without repeaters and is significantly cheaper than OC-192.
- Link between access and core switches. Since more and more offices are (for some reason) switching to Gigabit to the desktop, the access switches need much bandwidth to deal with the (possible) traffic. A good example is the new Cisco 3750 stackable with 16 GE and one 10GE links.
10GE to the desktop is at this time ridiculous, but don't think that means that 10GE technology is not used.I think you are totally missing the point.
OK, transfering between two computers won't beable to consume all that bandwidth.
HOWEVER, when TENS or HUNDREDS of machines are using a network, then you will really see a difference. And I belive that the SUBJECT OF THIS STORY IS AT WORK, WHERE THERE IS PROBABLY MORE THAN TWO MACHINES.
In WORK networks, not your pansy home setup, the LAN or whatever can often be running at capacity. When many machines are busy transfering large loads, you will easily get a bottleneck at the 'network' level. If you increase this 10 fold, you will likely get much more than just a 3x increase in performance, as a result of widening that bottleneck. Especially with MANY nodes using a shared network, you will find these gains to be substantial.
From looking at some of the specifications for 1000Base-T, it may be called Ethernet, it may have an Ethernet compatible software interface, but the hardware implementation looks nothing like traditional 10-Mbit Ethernet. Forget about collisions and shared media. They no longer exist. A 1000Base-T NIC contains four 250 Mbps full-duplex modems, one for each pair of wires in an 8-wire networking cable.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
10Gbps, why, I'd use it to filter out DDoS attacks :-\
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Just a random thought.. not sure if this is one of the technical hurdles... but with this much bandwidth wouldn't that help the DooM3 engine with sync issues in multiplayer (dynamic lighting etc?).
:)
Couldn't really find any info on the actually technical challenge that iD decided to limit multiplayer to 4 players, so I'm guessing bandwidth is one of the factors.
If you have any info on the technical restrictions that led to that decision please post links
Ask instead, what could I do with this much bandwidth. Use it (e.g) for implementing paging/swapping/disk caching between clusters, or even large groups of machines. Imagine a network of a hundred machines running a Unix/BSD/Linux OS, that share RAM via a fast network. This ultra-fast network is the way we'll get rid of the rotating media bottleneck!
Hurrah! Finally, it won't be a joke to say "Gimme a Beowolf cluster of those..."!
>It is not a problem at all if most of your clients use the same, relatively small (and thus cacheable) set of files.
Then you don't need 10GbE.
>Besides, the disk I/O is not that frequent these days, once you have your app loaded.
Exactly - more RAM and you don't need 10GbE.
And finally it is cheaper and more reliable to have the server connected to four GbE switches (and 1/4 of the clients connected to each of those switches) than implementing a redundant 10GbE.
If you implement 1 gig networking, and don't enable jumbo frames you'll only see a fraction of the available performance. The same applies with 10 gig networking. The MTU on 10 gig should go up to at least 750kB. Leaveing it at the standard 1500 bytes would limit your overall bandwidth due to a number of reasons.
For most of us, all this means is faster transfers of large files.
Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
Try to find a host OS with a TCP/IP stack that can properly utilize 1 gigabit ethernet, let alone 10 gigabits. Hint: It ain't Linux...
Try to find a storage solution that can read or write that fast. I'm thinking something like EMC with about 6-8 2 gigabit HBAs using Veritas DMP (dynamic multi-pathing).
Try to get all of the above, along with a 133 mhz. 64-bit PCI-X bus that still can't actually keep up with 10 gigabits of data. (133 mhz. 64-bit PCI-X is only about 1024 megabytes per second, not counting overhead).
The problem is, right now, the rest of the parts of a system just can't keep up with 10 gigabit ethernet. The only box that I would use that can handle that many I/O paths to storage (we're talking six to eight 64-bit 66 mhz. 2 gigabit FC host adapters) is a Sun Fire 6800 or something larger. The problem is, Sun doesn't yet support PCI-X, so now your 10 gig ethernet card is going to be limited to a 66 mhz. 64-bit PCI version, which will only transfer a maximum of 512 MB per second, not counting overhead. That is less than half of the available bandwidth of 10 Gig Ethernet.
You can forget about putting it in any Intel based system. There are not enough I/O busses and I/O controllers in even the beefiest Xeons or Opterons that can handle this much bandwidth (to disk).
Also, if your application doesn't need to write all of that data to disk, then how large is this dataset in memory that needs to be transferred at 10 gigabit speeds? If you had a server with 64 GB of memory, it could transfer it's entire memory set over 10 gigabit ethernet in less than 60 seconds.
A far better, and more economical solution, if you really need 10 gigabits of data throughput to the network, would be to use the same Sun server, and a product called Sun Trunking, which allows you to bond multiple gigabit ethernet interfaces together. You get all of the throughput you want, plus more fault tolerance. I've set it up before, and you can have a continuous ping going, across 4 connections, and pull 3 of those 4 connections and the ping keeps going, without even a dropped packet. It's really fault tolerant, and uses your existing switches, NICs, and hardware, without forcing you to upgrade your entire core switch architecture.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
In some of them, you are required to render the video from all possible viewing angles, creating terrabytes upon terrabytes of data for just a short video clip.
So, I am guessing that Three dimensional video will have no problems using up the bandwidth in the future.
Never underestimate what people can come up with to use available bandwidth, processing, and storage.
Currently at work, we're working
nice, it all makes sense now
Wasn't that easier?
Sheesh. Bunch o' pretentious basement wankers.
What for? Shit knows.
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
And thats just the tip of the iceberg. Back when the 300bps modem came out they figured the speed was as fast as anyone needed because it was near impossible for anyone to type more then 30 characters per second. Then the 1200 and 2400 bps modem cam out and they though those were as fast as anyone needed because almost no one can read at that rate. Then the 9200 and 14.4k because it takes almost no time to go to the next page 80x25 of colored text. then the 33.6k and 56k modems (Still the fastest modems for 1 normal telephone line) you can now download a 300x200x256 colors picture in no time. As bandwidth increases we find new ways to max it out and also with increased bandwidth we come with new methods of using the computer because it can now do it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Cardinality" is the number of elements in a given mathematical set. When modems ran at 300 baud, you could forget about sending large data sets, such as images, because text and voice data took up all the available bandwidth. As connection rates increased, so did the cardinality of data that users could send. [...] Video currently represents the highest cardinality data
The term "cardinality" is wrong for several reasons. First, image data isn't represented as sets, it's represented as ordered sequences, and when talking about ordered sequences, both computer scientists and mathematicians talk about their "length", not their "cardinality".
Furthermore, what matters is not the size of what you want to transmit, but the rate at which you need to transmit it. We call that the "data rate" or (somewhat sloppily) the "required bandwidth".
So, the overall point of the article, that there is no single media stream that requires 10 Gbit bandwidth, is correct. However, that's pretty much irrelevant: file servers, video servers, and aggregate usage still require that kind of bandwidth. A family of four might require that bandwidth. You might want that bandwidth to have your backup happen in 1 minute instead of 10 minutes. So, there are lots of reasons to want 10 Gbit Ethernet, provided the price is right.
As for his use of the term "cardinality", the author apparently doesn't quite know the terminology of the field.
Seriously, when the LAN bandwidth closes in on that of the L1 cache bandwidth of even the fastest CPUs in existence, what the f* kind of hardware do you need to be able to actually do something with the amount of data you get?
10Gbps LAN has to be something for only the highest-performance servers in existence today, and even they should be more or less saturated by that kind of bandwidth. How long will it take before the hardware on the desktop will even stand a chance to process that much information?
With 10GE it would have taken a few minutes rather than overnight. Or alternately, no time at all, because no-one would care anymore where the data was.
>Having this much bandwidth would change the way we design. >What would you do with this much bandwidth?"
How long before we have viruses that target gigabit NICs on PCI-X machines for DDoSing?
--Kimota!
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now you can built robust apps and offer application services from your home business systems ( and not pay commercial rates for the bandwidth). For example the kiosks at home depot rely on such services.
It seems to me that that at least with certain technologies, there's a "good enough" point, such as
a. billions of colors at 80+ Hz on a 21" monitor. There are special needs (or desires) for larger monitors or faster refresh rates, but while we might need better color accuracy, we don't need to worry about going for trillions of colors.
b. CD quality audio (or whatever makes the audiophiles happy. No, wait, *can* you make audiophiles happy?)
So is there a good enough point for bandwidth, a point at which pretty much all imaginable (or practical) datasets are transferred nigh-instantaneously?
I have a feeling the answer will involve the words "holodeck" or "matrix...."
--Kimota!
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
We'll use it for pr0n!
Keep in mind that roughly 8-12 xxx vcds are released each day, and have been released each day for the last 5 years or so. I think we all have a bit of catching up to do!
-Jiglebop
Your 1.44 gbps is way overkill. LCD panels are the future, they are 60 Hz. But your eyes don't need those 60 hz for a smooth experience, 30 Hz is enough - AFAIK a cinema movie is only 25 pictures/second. That would mean 600 MBit were enough.
And you don't even need that bandwidth: when you do desktop work, most of the screen remains the same for most of the time, and when you are watching a movie you don't need such a high resolution nor 24-bit color. Now lets say that you want to watch TV and want to scroll 5 pages per second, then you would need:
1280x800x24x5 = 123 MBit
833x625x16x25 = 208 MBit
So a gigabit ethernet link should be enough to watch different channels on two TV's, to record two programmes on your harddisk and do two remote desktop sessions at the same time. Isn't that enough for most home users?
If you however render perfect pictures (like your desktop does, but also games depicting a 3d world), then you need to go up to 70 Hz or more to make the animation look perfectly smooth.
On your desktop this is especially easy to see when dragging windows or moving your mouse pointer; if you ever thought your mouse seemed to stutter a bit instead of appearing perfectly smooth, then that's because in early windows versions your mouse update rate was fixed at 30 Hz. In newer versions you can actually change how often it is updated, making it appear smoother.
In games (and some movies) it is also easier to see stuttering when the camera moves from side to side or up and down (try strafing in a 3d game which is running at say 40-50 fps, and you'll notice it stutters, even though you would never notice it when you simply run forward).
Our eyes can easily see stuff up to 100-200 Hz, depending on how it is displayed. For example, the human eye can easily see a bright white flash lasting only 1/200th of second in an otherwise dark room...
and after a hefty session of downloading movies, mp3's, games you need to distribute these to other computers in your local network.
Meh.
just wait for office 2006, and install it on the network. I mean, after all, they'll add some new database linking features that 1% of the population will ever use, and the base install size will go up to 27GB.
I'd install DragonFly and run a single image cluster.
This would be great if you were clustering boxes. But you would need very high bus/CPU speeds. Most of today's CPUs and mainboards would be the actual bottleneck, making a 10 Gbps NIC overkill. Perhaps when mainboards and CPUs become faster/have more throughput, a 10 Gbps NIC will become more practical.
I work with PACS - A high quality raw picture server dedicated to medical imaging - X Rays and Heart Caths. I'd put the 10 gig server and 10 gig NICs in place so my doctors would quit b!tching about how slow the network is. Incidentally, for anyone else in my shoes, use Network Card Teaming with the EA. The ROC says it can't be done, but it can.
-Promethyl
...we're working on a major project to re-architect our core application platform so that the different systems can be de-coupled and hosted separately.
Whenever I hear sentences like this, my mind's application platform fault-tolerant BS sensornet activates and plays soothing music to save me from becoming de-coupled myself.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Four parts 1gb dimms, one part four dimm slot mb, one part ups, one or two parts gb nics, one part linux syncing to disc periodically. There's also a memory compression kernel patch to stretch the 4GB even further. Wala, 4-8GB ram based storage. An alternate configuration is a ram drive & cron a backup every so often. ~$700.
you shouldn't consider bandwidth as how fast you can transfer data from A to B, but rather as the capacity of the network as a whole... 10Gbps networking is need more in backbones connecting 1Gbps or 100Mbps hosts that communicate amongst each other at their respective wire speeds.
I doubt you will ever get 10Gbps per second from a fileserver or web host, unless the data required is constantly in cache or high speed memory.
I think these kind of network speeds could give us the possibility to use ethernet for connecting keyboards, mice, storage, etc to computers.
The network IS the computer.
I also believe that protocols like ISCSI will benefit from this, giving cheaper and faster SANS than with FC. :)
Goodbye expensive HBA, hello cheap SNIC.
5.1/16b/96KHz surround sound is 8.8Mbps and 8Kx6Kx32bit HDTV @60fps is 85.8Gbps, so A/V is 86Gbps, uncompressed. Two way communication means 172Gbps (1Mx: a million times CD playback rates). Symbolic application data might be another Gbps, and smell/flavor/tactile data is left as an exercise to the reader; consider the nominal 40Hz signal rate over the remaining 10 cranial nerves.
--
make install -not war
Yeah - I hate large landscape pans and quick motions in movies for that very fact - they aren't smooth. I can always see the framerate, and that bugs me. Now, when we get ~60 Hz framerate for movies (should be easier when we go all-digital), that'll come closer to full immersion for me.
0x0D 0x0A
Define "properly". If you mean efficiency, that's desirable but not critical. If an Intel/Linux server is 75% the efficiency of a Sun server, yet costs 30% the price, you can install two or three for the same bucks. That's efficiency of a sort too, yes?
Try to find a storage solution that can read or write that fast.
Well, in terms of raw sustained bandwidth, this doesn't seem all that difficult. A single Ultra320 SCSI HBA manages about 2.5 Gb/s, and 4-6 of those should meet requirements. Modern drives can sustain 400-650 Mb/s easily enough, 32 or even 24 of them would give plenty of headroom. 4 per HBA would be ideal. Even consumer 4-way SATA RAIDs would likely do the trick - being point-to-point they have more headroom than a shared SCSI bus (though less transfer efficiency).
Try to get all of the above, along with a 133 mhz. 64-bit PCI-X bus
Thanks, I'd rather use PCI Express. A 4x PCIe slot easily matches PCI-X, but it's point-to-point rather than shared, so I get that much bandwidth for each HBA. Motherboards are in production now with 4x, 8x and 16x slots, chipsets with 32 available PCIe lanes - that's around 80 Gb/s total bandwidth. A dual Opteron system today also has around 80 Gb/s memory bandwidth, and quad- and 8-way systems have much more.
Sun systems have traditionally been right up there with sgi for high-bandwidth servers while humble x86 consumer systems haven't held a candle to them. But that ole' world, it just keeps on changing...
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The reasons from my point of view, for 10G ethernet is not for end users, as I see rare requirements for the average user to require such bandwidth, in the near future. But with such devices, as IP KVM's, NAS, iSCSI, among many other devices that require high speeds, just think of a network, 24 devices of 1Gbps connected devices, needing to talk to a NAS at 1Gbps, all transfering a 1TB worth of data at the same time. And what if 2 devices that are talking to each other decide to change their priority or TOS so that they take precedence over all other traffic, that could be problems.
10 Gbps would be very useful for remote X.
I work in a Brazilian university and we have application servers and terminals running X.
Currently the application servers are local (the machine is physically in the local rack of its building). We cannot put them in a central place due to bandwidth limitations, what is not convenient since we have to care about the physical access security of each server.
Also, more bandwidth is nice for playing videos remotely. We cannot allow this currently due to bandwidth (ok, there's the server's CPU to consider aswell).
... to describe you completely. there is no more information in those 150million sperms. one sperm is pretty enough.
so why would you like to store 150million times the same data.
ever heard about avoiding redundancy in databases and so forth...
maybe some instances for backup or encoded and scrambled and crypted. but hey, no way 150million times the same information.
get real and do the maths...
How much bandwidth will that person have to consume? ;-)
:-)
Thinking about it. There are hundreds of varying ways to reduce bandwidth overhead, but there are two primary reasons why people could always (and I mean ALWAYS) use more bandwidth.
1) Reducing bandwidth requires thought and time from developers as well as end users. Developers need to keep the size of the data sent down and end users need to use web friendly graphics or compress files. All that requires additional development time as well as end user training.
2) The more bandwidth the more global things can become. I would love to be able to go to any computer in the world and instantly load a full size movie. A full high definition quality, full length movie is a pretty heafty file and even streaming such a video needs a lot of bandwidth. What if I wanted to jump to any point in the video and fast forward and do all sorts of crazy stuff? I need the thickest water pipes possible
http://brandonbloom.name
I am not an A/V professional but I sure benefited from upgrading the internal network of my house to Gigabit.
After dumping the hour of DV from the camera or capturing the latest episode of Deadwood (14 gig per hour of video) it's nice to have the bandwidth to transfer it to the Network Attached Storage (Go Linux!).
Having the extra bandwidth makes the NAS seem and act like a local drive. After editing the video I process it right to the NAS.
Having the extra bandwitch is noticable and I wouldn't want to go back to 100mb.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
Free the Bandwith..
Honestly some simulations really need the bandwith. One of the big supercomputers uses 6 gig-e lines in a torus formation. to get better bandwith.
Heres the other side.. 10 Gigs per second will take 1.25 gigabytes/sec per direction.. PCI64 is almost maxed ~70% by a full gig-E.
(350 MB/Sec *8bits /2direction= 1.4 gigabits max for channel)
PCI X is only twice as fast.
(800 MB *8bits / 2 directions=3.2 gigabits max per channel)
So someone needs a be building a faster/fatter bus
In America we ask for faster, but settle for fatter :)
No, you're more likely to have 800 Gbps from New York to Hong Kong (or at least LA) over a DWDM system. Long-haul rates do not lag behind short distances ones at all.
In fact, it's usually the other way around. Trunk connections can afford to use fast but expensive technology as they carry so much traffic. The short haul, single user connections have to wait for costs to decrease so that the technology can trickle down.
It's certainly true that it's easier to push fast signals shorter distances over copper. But that's not the only factor driving link speeds.
Jumbo frames work, and will speed up certain types of transfers by around 10-15%. It does work rather nicely on NFS servers with high speed raid setups on the back end.
Mod parent +1 funny
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
is always Moore's law!
Yeah, um, you don't need more bandwidth, you need to make better use of existing...
Better compression, CLEANER CODE, better protocols. Overhead is just ridiculous now. Making these improvements would definitely make EXISTING connections better without having to upgrade infrastructure and giving a benefit everywhere!
is coders will start writing programs to not consider bandwidth consumption, which will lead to a replica situation of what is now 'fasterprocesser == slowercode == fasterproceessor == slowercode etc'
I can see from that high UID, you're relatively new here. This is Slashdot. You'd have better luck getting Planned Parenthood to recommend that you adopt out your baby than finding people here who actually RTFA.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ya know, so far everyone seems to think of this as a long distance pipe. It's not, it ethernet. RTFA useful distance is in meters *NOT* kilometers. This is an intraoffice connection not a WAN pipe.
Single mode fiber gives you upwards of 20 kilometers.
definitely a troll: 'i think linux is better than windows but ...'
It can be from your office to your provider. Then encapsulated or transported accross very long distance with things like cisco ONS.
It is not unsusual to have 1G or ATM OC3 or ATM OC12 accross long distance (in my case 500 Km), except if I work on another planet.
Don't let the computer/expert control the election. Information for Belgium in french: http://www.poureva.be/
Overkill only exists when the rest of technology hasn't caught up yet. Sure, you wont be able to fully take advantage of the 10 gigabits. There will ALWAYS be a bottleneck. This is good though because, for a while atleast, the connection speed wont be it.
pr0n!
Break the mindless monotony!
Our plan for 10GbE is to support researchers with huge datasets (in the terabytes) who use our supercomputing facility. We currently use GbE, which is not sufficient for transfering such large amounts of data. So we are upgrading to 10GbE and also getting WAN connectivity at that rate (not sure if this is going to be 10-GigE-WAN-PHY or not) so that researchers across the country can transfer their data in a matter of minutes or hours, as opposed to days or weeks.
For those posters who are complaining about not getting near GbE performance, you are not properly tuning your system and network. You need think big - large frame sizes (network, 9k - 64k), large TCP windows (system buffers - think MB for GbE and GB for 10GbE), large I/O read/write(system disk), and account for latency (calculate your bandwidth*delay product). I've gotten constant ~980 Mbps throughput on a GbE network that was tuned.
two chicks at the same time.
Sure, how many are Ethernet? Probably none. The "10Gb" telco standard is OC192.
I would just transfer big files back and forth across my LAN all day to see how fast it was.
It's not how much they can send, it's how quickly it can be sent.
Have you read my journal today?
useful distance is in meters *NOT* kilometers
The useful distance of 10GBase-CX4 is 10-20m. However, 10G ethernet is not limited to CX4. It has a fiber-optic PHY and can interoperate with OC192, both of which have a useful range of kilometers.
TTFN
Moderator please note that the parent is just a big trolll.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/
Sure, that's 15m for copper, but up to 40km for the ER module over very good quality single-mode fiber. That module is over $10K, of course, and you still have to have a switch or router to plug it into, but if you need it, there it is.
... stream multicast video and pop-up ads of natalie portman pouring hot grits down her pants to all my co-workers!
I aspire to be a professional troll one day.
If it can go wrong it wnetscape: Segmentation Fault, Core dumped
You have invaded our lands and raped our women and killed our holy fighters, and for this we will burn your cities to the ground! 11 September will come to America once again!