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."
How did they sustain a transfer like that? Unless my math is wrong, that's 11GBps ... what has that kind of read/write speed?
Actually yes. Back in the day when Basic allowed multiple commands per line with the colon (:) seperator. Oh wait, you meant useful programs...nevermind.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
SCTP was specifically devised as a replacement for TCP as it can emulate the 1 -> 1 connection of TCP but can do connection based 1 -> N too. I thought it has been designed with high speed in mind too. Does anyone know whether this protocol is being used more and more or has it just become another good-idea-at-the-time that got run over by the backwards compatability steamroller?
...how fast this could transfer the sum of all data (DNA, memory, etc.) contained in a human.
Yes, I'm kidding. But only half kidding. In some crazy future where we can reconstitute energy into matter, how much bandwidth would be needed to do this practically? Do we even have any ideas or estimates on how much storage would be needed to accurately represent the nature of the human body in terms of data? And no, I'm not talking about the "memory" of the brain - I'm talking about the physical manifestation of the body itself, of which the memory of the brain is a part.
Cargo capacity of a 747-400 is 53000 kg and 160 m3 .2 mm and 3 grams.
I assume around the same size and weight of a blueray disc as of a DVD disc which is 1.2 mm thick, 12cm in diameter and weighs a maximum of 20 grams. Also consider a plastic sleeve which maybe adds
Space needs for a disc with sleeve is thus 120x120x1.4mm = 20160 mm^3 = 0,00002016 m^3
Weight is 23 grams = 0,023 kg.
Thus:
discs/plane (volume) = 160 / 0,00002016 ~ 7936500 pcs
discs/plane (weight) = 53000 / 0,023 ~ 2304300 pcs
maximum discs per plane is then about 2300000 pcs
Blueray stores 50GB = 400 Gbit
Plane stores 400*2300000 Gbit = 920'000'000 Gbit
Not counting the time to load, burn and read the discs, a non-stop flight from Pittsburgh to LA takes around 5 hours = 18000 seconds
This amounts to 920000000/18000 =~ 51000 Gbit/sec
Considering a very approximate cost of $1/kg for the transport, and $2 for each disc it amounts to around
$4653000 total.
Which is about 0.04 $/Gbyte, or around the same price per GB as a cheap 160GB Hard drive.
Canadian researchers at CaNet3 did an interesting experiment around this very question.
What do you do when your network is faster than your drives?
You turn the network itself into a drive - a giant drive made of light and 1,000 miles in diameter.
Basically, the idea is that instead of accessing data relatively slowly from a server's drive, you instead keep the data spinning around the fibre network at the speed of light. If anyone wants something - a DVD quality movie for example - they peel it off as it comes whipping by. I'm not sure what speeds they were working with, but I do recall that a DVD would take less than 1/4 of a second to download. Once you hit these kinds of speeds, everything is always everywhere.
My friend calls this an "Extronym" - when you append the word for wich the last initial stands to the acronym. For example - ATM Machine or PIN Number. She's be using it for a couple of years now.
I read a lot of : is this needed?, let's be clever and ask oneself what we are doing...
Frankly, it is hilarious from folks who probably jumped on GMail, IPods, stupid phone which does all but work when needed, and other devices which are arguably the most un-needed space on the planet. (No you won't get me to believe your 200MB emails are worth keeping...)
Ciao
As a reminder, the ALICE experiment at CERN will produce per year 1 PB ( Peta Byte ) of _raw_ data. This is only _one_ experiment out of _four_. Add DB overhead and you start getting the picture. And no: there won't be backups: too big. The nature of particle physics is to be statistics. The search is for slight deviations from what is predicted. So the amount of raw data is huge. It is also that the amount of (raw) data per second produced will be in some case magnitude of order bigger.
It is thought that some data will not be stored at all at CERN, but sent straight to remote storage farm. Too much data to be stored localy.
The people analysing those data will be scattered over the planet, involving indeed the need of big transfers.
Ha ha ha: is this needed ? Hi hi let's think about it... Please dump all the crap data you pretend to need and ask again the question.