Slashdot Mirror
Another Internet2 Speed Record Broken
rdwald writes "An international team of scientists led by Caltech have set a new Internet2 speed record of 101 gigabits per second. They even helpfully converted this into one LoC/15 minutes. Lots of technical details in this press release; in addition to the obviously better network infrastructure, new TCP protocols were used."
Has anyone every stopped to think this might be too fast for its own good?
:P
Isn't there a point when we've reached a speed where rather than deciding what to send from one place to another, we become lazy and start sending everything?
And won't that just lead to massive researcher mp3 swaps?
TCP is a specific protocol, a "new" TCP protocol would suggest a different protocol, unless it means a revision of the current protocol.
They could probably get much better speeds if they compressed it first. The Library of Congress is quite compressible, as there is a lot of redundant data. Text in general is known to be quite compressible.
Here's a question. Sure, you can send 101 Gigabits per second. But what kind of power do you need on either end to send or interpret that much data? I know my hard drive doesn't go that fast. I don't even think my RAM is that fast.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
or the cost ;)
Never overestimate the cost per bit of a 747 full of blueray disks.
KFG
This is great and all, but has anyone stopped to ask why we need such fast networks? The stock-frenzy driven surplus of unneeded bandwidth was a major contributing factor to the dot-com bust. I remember when I was working on a multi-gigabit, next-generation optical switch, and the project manager was assuring us that in just a few years, people would be downloading their movies from Blockbuster instead of actually traveling there to pick up a DVD. We were all supposed to be videoconferencing left and right by now, with holographic communications just around the corner. A massive growth in online gaming was supposed to cripple the existing legacy networks, forcing providers to upgrade or perish. All of this was supposed to generate a huge demand for bandwidth, which were were poised to deliver.
Well, as we all know, that demand never materialized. We had way more bandwidth than the market needed, and when the bandwidth finally became stressed, providers opted to cap bandwidth and push less-intensive services rather than pay for expensive upgrades to their infrastructures.
I think we should instead be focusing on technologies that can a) generate real new revenue to the providers that we're trying to sell these ultra-fast networks to, b) have obvious and legitimate research or quality of life improvements, and c) are sure-fire hits to attract consumer attention (and $$$).
Don't get me wrong, this is very cool and all, but until Netflix actually lives up to its moniker and sends me my rented movies through my phone/cable line rather than UPS, then it doesn't really matter to me if the network is capable of 5 Gbps or 500 Gbps. Slashdot will still load in a second or 2 either way. We need real products to take advantage of this massive bandwidth, and that revenue will drive research even further, faster. I fear we're going to stall out unless we find a way to embrace these faster networks and make money off of them.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Medical imaging produces very large files, and the need to transfer them over distances quickly to save lives is real.
The possibility for video is great as well. Imagine getting multiple feeds of the next WTO event from different sources on the ground. Or quality alternative broadcasting that isn't just some postage-stamp-sized, pixelated blobs. Torrents are nice, but there is something to be said for being jacked in live.
And for those who didn't RTFA, it's 3 DVDs a second.
[insert sig file here]
Yep, your entire hard drive moved in 10 seconds but the question is: How do they got those read/write speeds?
Your HD would never reach that... hdparm gives me 40mb/s if I am lucky.
Maybe they have a *LOT* of RAM
The way to write 11GBps is to use a distributed array of disks. A parllel filesystem can easily handle it. Over a 100 networked computers with a parallel filesystem like Lustre, GPFs or PVFS( 1,2 and 3 .... is there a 3 ?) can do it. I mean there are disk arrays that have sustained throughput of over 55GBps. Also the 11GBps that we see now may one day used for having all sorts of communication going through it so in a way it is a way of the future.
There are on order of 10^27 atoms in a human (6.022*10^23 per 12 grams or carbon so about 10^26-10^27 for a 100kg carbon blob)
That at even 100Gigabytes per second assuming say 100bytes per atom is 10^16 seconds or about 2% the age of the universe (100million years)
We need another 10^9 increase
Another poster has already provided an excellent summary of how long it would take to transfer a whole 'human', assuming 100 bytes per atom.
I will note that DNA is actually easy. Since it's massively redundant--just about every cell has a copy of the same stuff--you only need to send it once. The entire human genome is three billion (3E9) base pairs. Each base is one of only four possibilities, so that's just two bits each.
Without annotation, you can fit the entire genome into about 750 megabytes--it will just barely squeeze on to a CD. Actually, there are a number of repetitive features, so it can be compressed further. The genome is big, but it's not huge.
~Idarubicin