Slashdot Mirror


First 500 Terabytes Transmitted via LHCGlobal Grid

neutron_p writes "When the LHC Computer Grid starts operating in 2007, it will be the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet. Today eight major computing centers successfully completed a challenge to sustain a continuous data flow of 600 megabytes per second on average for 10 days from CERN in Geneva, Switzerland to seven sites in Europe and the US. The total amount of data transmitted during this challenge -- 500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection."

244 comments

  1. But will.... by cyngus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...this network be able to handle Longhorn SP1?

    1. Re:But will.... by Janitha · · Score: 2

      Ha, wonder if the RIAA is going bezerk as they always do, similar to the internet2 controvorsy. "ONE MUSIC CD UNCOMPRESSED IN ONE SECOND" "ONE DVD UNCOMPRESSED IN EIGHT SECONDS"

    2. Re:But will.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang! Hot Warez!!! Now I just need to get my hands on a googlebyte ethernet card.

    3. Re:But will.... by Donald+Ferrone · · Score: 0

      As a truly respected professor, I agree with the statement that Linux is a substandard hack, inferior in every way to the superior Microsoft Windows operating system.

      --
      Donald Ferrone, Ph.D
      Professor of computer science
      http://www.geocities.com/donald_ferrone/
    4. Re:But will.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With seperate servers and if you include satellite feeds and internet2, then yes. Oh, that's just the blurbs from Microsoft marketing. Did you want the application too? Triple what I just said, no problem! Considering their ability to maintain release dates, all of the much touted current bleeding-edge technology will be outdated by the time they release, so no problem.

    5. Re:But will.... by kanuac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Donnie!! Why did you logged in with your father's Slashdot account??!

    6. Re:But will.... by Donald+Ferrone · · Score: 0

      My not agreeing with your views or choice of operating system is grounds to make an ad hominem attack? Grow up.

      --
      Donald Ferrone, Ph.D
      Professor of computer science
      http://www.geocities.com/donald_ferrone/
  2. That's all nice, but by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can it handle a slashdotting?

    1. Re:That's all nice, but by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      And does the RIAA know about this? :-)

      <SARCASM>
      After all, the only content that goes over networks like this is obviously RIAA pap^Wvcontent, and 600MB/s is a full CD every second!
      </SARCASM>

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:That's all nice, but by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Fat chance (nice thought though)

      --
      I am Spartacus
    3. Re:That's all nice, but by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      And does the RIAA know about this? :-)

      I think it's the MPAA that should be more worried... Really, mp3 transfer is quick enough.

      I know many who bitch about downloading a movie off eDonkey and how slow it is. I remind them that it's free, and if they don't like it they can always go buy the DVD...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:That's all nice, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having been slashdotted several times I can assure you the slashdot effect is overrated. It is the server operators that are retarded.

  3. Great! by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we don't have to wait around for our porn!

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 overrated

    2. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Easy: multiple HDTV quality streams...

    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Why the fuck would you want to watch porn at HDTV quality?

      You want to see all the shit flakes on the cock after a good ass reaming and the acne on the bitch's ass?

    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually i wanted to see how you've been born, son.

    5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's kind of funny that geeks like you are posting stuff like that.

      You do realize that there are female geeks on Slashdot too (no I am not one)?

    6. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, that about does it for lunch, thanks.

    7. Re:Great! by dlZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now we don't have to wait around for our porn!

      Only on /. is this insightful and not funny!

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    8. Re:Great! by Janitha · · Score: 1

      3d Porn, two streams comming in 300 MBps, you can use one of the new 3d monitors. It will be the closest they will ever come to the real thing

      ...Pathetic indeed.

    9. Re:Great! by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

      This isn't good -- now I have no time to prep before the first boobies begin to appear on my screen...aw...dammit.

      Made a mess. See? Too much boobies too fast!

      The power is too much for any mortal man!

      IronChefMorimoto

    10. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooooOOOoooooh BURN@!

  4. Couch potate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The max rate for HDTV is 25Mbps/second. 25 megabits = 2.98023224 × 10-06 terabytes

    So that makes this data rate equal to 46603 hours of maximum data rate HDTV. Hmm as soon as pr0n adopts it then it will be a success just like how the regular internet evolved.

    1. Re:Couch potate by famouswhendead · · Score: 0
      Try this
      True HD is more as transmitted is already a compressed format like DVD

      720p HDTV uncompressed:
      8 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94field = 110.48 MB per/sec, or 398 GB per/hr.
      10 bit @ 1280 x 720 @ 59.94field = 121.52 MB per/sec, or 438 GB per/hr.
      1080i and 1080p HDTV uncompressed: 8 bit @ 1920 x 1080 @ 24fps = 99.53 MB per/sec, or 358 GB per/hr.
      10 bit @ 1920 x 1080 @ 24fps = 109.43 MB per/sec, or 394 GB per/hr.

  5. Library of Congresses? by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 3, Funny

    //insert perfunctory comment about library of congress here

    On a side note, I tried to find out what the real data size of the LOC is, but I could not.

    --
    If you blog it...
    1. Re:Library of Congresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I tried to find out what the real data size of the LOC is, but I could not.

      I have it for you the Size of the Library of Congress (LOC) = 1 LOC. You'll have to google for a conversion table.

    2. Re:Library of Congresses? by IncarnadineConor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here you are good sir

      http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:asL7GGh_JsI J: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabyte+library+of+congress +in+terabytes&hl=en&client=firefox-a

    3. Re:Library of Congresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about 1.272 Libraries of Congress.

    4. Re:Library of Congresses? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Really? The number I got on Wikipedia was 25... 20 terrabytes of data =~ LoC

    5. Re:Library of Congresses? by brianmf · · Score: 1

      So how many stationwagons full of tape drives is 1 LOC?

    6. Re:Library of Congresses? by repvik · · Score: 2, Informative
      Apparently, the LoC has shrunk. It now consists of the following lines:

      Server Error
      The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.

      If the problem persists, please mail error@google.com and mention this error message and the query that caused it.

      Of course, that's because of /.'s lame space-in-url-idiocy. Anyways, the LoC is actually approx. 20TB.

    7. Re:Library of Congresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is undocumented? You must smoke a lot of crack to believe that.

    8. Re:Library of Congresses? by greenlead · · Score: 1

      This seems to answer it pretty well: http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020605.html

    9. Re:Library of Congresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many stationwagons full of tape drives is 1 LOC?

      That would be one tape drive too. Station wagons typicaly dont have to have one but it would be nice to have it to listen to music while cruising along with your high bandwidth of tapes.

  6. This pales in comparison to... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a box full of DLT, LTO, or AIT tapes. With FedEx at my side, I can have several hundred terabytes sent almost anywhere on the planet in 24 hours.

    Of course, the latency for this gargantuan data pipeline is a bit on the high side...

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:This pales in comparison to... by dave-tx · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm playing Quake III via FedEx, but the prices are killing me.

      --

      >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    2. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Danathar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ummm...you still have to WRITE all those tapes out and then READ them back in again. Factor THAT in and THEN compare

    3. Re:This pales in comparison to... by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      I forget who the company is, but their business sends complete systems with the data, so there's no data transfer downtime other than the FedEx latency.

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    4. Re:This pales in comparison to... by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm playing Quake III via FedEx, but the prices are killing me.

      Me too, but it's the frame rates that are killing me (and getting me killed).

    5. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'm playing Quake III via FedEx, but the prices are killing me.

      Stop moaning, you have a better frame rate than must of have on Doom3!

    6. Re:This pales in comparison to... by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Haha, I'd hate to have the job of transferring the data to tape and then shipping it simultaneously to 200 places. Good luck keeping up.

      From TFA:
      "When the LHC starts operating in 2007, it will be the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet, producing more than 1500 megabytes of data every second for over a decade."

      "Scientists working at over two hundred other computing facilities...will access the data via the Grid."

    7. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Ok: 500 TB in one day leaves 9 days to copy. You'd have to factor in the price of tape drives, reliability, etc. and factor those against the monthly bill of a 600 MB/s line... I be tapes would win. But realistically, aren't they storing this data on tapes anyway?

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    8. Re:This pales in comparison to... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      ...a box full of DLT, LTO, or AIT tapes.

      No it doesn't. Sure, the part of the transfer than FedEx does for you take under 24 hours, but how long does it take to write the data from the source systems onto the tapes? How long does it take to read the data off the tapes and onto the source systems?

    9. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, you people have no sense of humor. It was a joke! Ha, ha funny!

    10. Re:This pales in comparison to... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do realize it was a joke, don't you?

      But to address your point, yes, tape can be slow. However, the best tape drive money can buy right now (a title claimed by HP's Ultrium 960) is faster than most hard drives -- 160MB/sec according to the specs. It's not going to be that bad. Expensive, yes, but not slow.

      Just a thought experiment: sending a terabyte of data via this tape solution would require (1,000,000 megs / 160 megs per sec) 6,250 seconds, or 104 minutes to write to tape. This assumes 2:1 compression of course, but the actual compressability is unknown.

      Sending 500 terabytes in this fashion would require 866 hours (36 days) to write and that same amount to read back onto disk. 72 days sounds like a lot, but this could be shrunk down to as little as 104 minutes if you're willing to employ 500 simultaneously-operating Ultrium 960 tape drives. Expensive, yes, but this is a fun thought experiment where dollars don't matter. Let's assume you use ten drives in an array on both ends (ship the drives with the media to save buying double drives), shrinking your backup/restore times to 86.6 hours (3.6 days) each.

      7.2 days plus FedEx Priority Overnight transit time of about 16 hours yields a total transfer time of 7.87 days (7 days, 20 hours, 52 minutes, 48 seconds), or about 680,400 seconds to transfer 500,000,000 megabytes. This gives us a sustained transfer rate of 734MB/sec. This is 22% better performance than the link in the article. The time could be shrunk to as little as one day (the vast majority of it FedEx transit time) if you have 500 tape drives operating all at once.

      Total expenditure for such an enterprise would be 10 Ultrium 960 drives (10x$6,190 each = $61,900) and 625 tape cartridges (625x$129 each = $80,625), for a total hardware cost of $142,525. FedEx International Priority shipping costs for a box of tapes like this would be $603, bringing the grand total to $143,128.

      Just for giggles, a 500-drive array would cost you $3,095,000 in drive hardware but still take only $80,625 in tapes. With shipping it's a mere $3,176,228.

      I'm willing to bet the LHC network costs considerably more than that to operate. What's more, the "tape" network hardware costs need be borne only once. The only operating costs are FedEx shipping costs and replacement tapes if and when needed. It's actually a very efficient way to send huge sums of data from place to place when you think about it.

      Note: I've done all this math off the cuff while doing about ten other things, so if my figures are off, don't try to have me drawn and quartered. It was a joke, and it's supposed to be mildly entertaining.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    11. Re:This pales in comparison to... by ztirffritz · · Score: 1

      This is the story that you're looking for: http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&p a=showpage&pid=4 They ship several TB of data around the world with UPS complete with the computer. This means that the end user can simply plug the computer into their network and access the data. It is better than shipping tapes or hard drives alone. The computer becomes a trivial expense when you're dealing with multiple TBs of data.

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    12. Re:This pales in comparison to... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      It still renders faster than Doom 3 on my other machine ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    13. Re:This pales in comparison to... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Using a large multi drive tape library, probably less than 24 hours. However the fundamental flaw is assuming you have to write *all* the tapes before you ship, and wait for *all* the tapes to arrive before you start the restore.

    14. Re:This pales in comparison to... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Back in our day, we played Zork by carrier pigeon. And we liked it that way!!

      Opens envelope.... "I turn 20 deg to the left and fire..."

      2 days later... message reads... "Augggghghh!!"

    15. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so five hundred terabytes is about seven hundred thousand CDs if I am counting correctly. I think that comes out to a stack about 700 meters high/ long. My proverbial UPS truck is getting kindof full.

    16. Re:This pales in comparison to... by kpwoodr · · Score: 1

      > Of course, the latency for this gargantuan data pipeline is a bit on the high side...

      Plus you have to pay extra for guaranteed delivery, where as you get it free with TCP.

      --
      This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    17. Re:This pales in comparison to... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      But of course all this nice and usefull calculations crumble to nothing if you realize that the whole purpose of this grid is to allow every university the acess to any portion of the data without the vast cost of keeping a total copy available (and no, on tape isnt available in a sense that will be usefull to analyse the data).

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    18. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now multiply the number of sites to duplicate this data to by 10. Then 100. This may be a faster way to push that amount to one site, but not to multiple sites, especially if the network is broadcasting and the receiving sites are merely listening.

    19. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another side to that coin.

      Let's look at 500TB another way :

      $ bc
      scale=12
      500 * 1048576 * 1048576
      549755813888000

      OKay so thats a lot of bytes.

      Now suppose that you have an old IBM PC with a 300 baud modem with the acoustic coupler. If we assume a data error rate of about 15%, a reasonable number for those units, as well as a protocol like Kermit then how long will it take to transfer the data to another system via plain old telephone ( POT )?

      Well, we have to assume that the 300 baud modem will do regular handshaking and if we are very lucky we will get about 32 characters of data per second. That still sounds kind of fast. I think that 30 is a safer number but for the sake of using powers of two here lets go on the high side of POT with a 32 characters per second.

      549755813888000/32
      17179869184000.000000000000 seconds

      Lets assume a standard year of 365.25 days :

      365.25 * 24 * 3600
      31557600.0 sec/yr

      17179869184000 / 31557600
      544397.203336121885 Yrs .203336121885 * 31557600
      6416799.999998076000 secs remainder

      Hmmm .. how many seconds in a day?
      24 * 3600
      86400

      6416800/86400
      74.268518518518 days .268518518518 * 86400
      23199.999999955200
      23200 / 3600
      6.444444444444 hours .44444444 * 3600
      1599.99998400
      1600/60
      26.666666666666 minutes .6666666666*60
      39.9999999960 seconds

      So then using a 15% error rate 300 baud acoustic coupler modem we can transmit that 500TB in about 544,397 Years 74 days 6 hours 26 min 40 seconds.

      Provided that we make this a local phone call then our costs are very very low.

      The cost of an IBM support and maintainance agreement for this process would be a little insane however.

      Dennis at Blastwave.org
      http://www.blastwave.org/
      An OpenSolaris Community Site

    20. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Low cost? Ever think of the elecricity and phone bill (even basic local-only service) for a half a million years?

    21. Re:This pales in comparison to... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Umm...it's a joke, remember?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    22. Re:This pales in comparison to... by nyri · · Score: 1

      Just for giggles, a 500-drive array would cost you $3,095,000 in drive hardware but still take only $80,625 in tapes. With shipping it's a mere $3,176,228.

      You need to multiply that with seven as there were seven receiving organizations and end up $22,223,596. But your point remains, it's popably cheper to use tapes and FedEx than cable conenctions.

    23. Re:This pales in comparison to... by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      Now THAT'S insightful, I WONDER why NOBODY else even THOUGHT of THAT? ;-)

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    24. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Well..Duh...so was my reply! :)

      Cool analysis though...

    25. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Retric · · Score: 1

      I don't think there going to ship all the data to all 200 locations when they can just use 1-10 data center's and have all the Scientists remotly log into them and have the results sent back over a fast data link. It's not like humans can look at 1500MBps of data by hand.

      The whole idea of GRID computing is you can have your data and computations take place anywhere and just pay for data storage and computing power. What do you think 200, 600mbps links is going to cost you?

    26. Re:This pales in comparison to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider using https://www.sonicair.ups.com/ups/ instead of overnight shipping. The extra cost would be minimal with the budget you're talking about.

  7. Dark Fibre by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least things can transfer alot faster within US, if we actually lit the dark fibre underground. We planted so many during the .com eras, yet so many are still unlit due to unwillingness to the hire more techies for maintainance.

    Well going outside the US is a different story. I really don't know how we connect to Europe etc.

    1. Re:Dark Fibre by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Come on. The actual fiber is dirt cheap. So what if there's miles and miles of it underground, you still need to hook your little section into the larger network, buy a whole bunch of hardware, AND "hire more techies for maintainance." If it were economically feasible and lucrative, they'd be at it right now. But they're not, seeing as the demand for ultra-high bandwith pipes lie with (a) pirates who don't want to pay for stuff anyway, and (b) CERN. And wuddya know, CERN already has their own ultra-high bandwidth network.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:Dark Fibre by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Huh? The cost of laying the fiber pales, as you partly mentioned, when compared to the cost of fiber transceiving equipment. There are tons of 'dark' copper lines as well, that could sustain much greater data throughput than they currently do, but its all about how the data is handled at either end. The same goes for intercontinental runs. You think they are dropping cables one at a time? There is enough bundled up capacity for a long time, but it's 'dark' until it's cost effective to put the gear at either end to use it.

    3. Re:Dark Fibre by I_Want_This_ID · · Score: 1

      Don't forget fiber to the home (ma bell apparently planned this 20 years ago, but got broken up instead).

    4. Re:Dark Fibre by telemonster · · Score: 1

      One word... eBay! Your source for grey market metro switching hardware.
      In our metro area, prices for business bandwidth (via fiber) are out of sync with consumer grade circuits. Telcove is helping correct the monopoly that Cox Business (was Fibernet) had, to a degree.

      --
      Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
    5. Re:Dark Fibre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're not, seeing as the demand for ultra-high bandwith pipes lie with (a) pirates who don't want to pay for stuff anyway, and (b) CERN.

      Oddly enough, I don't qualify as either of those, but it would certianly be nice if I had a larger pipe coming into either work or my home. But it seems that I am stuck with this crappy cable connection that only works an average of 150 hours out of the week.

    6. Re:Dark Fibre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SBC, the Ma' Bell reincarnation, is currently working on FTTH in several sites around the country according to a friend that does engineering for SBC in one of these test areas.

    7. Re:Dark Fibre by rnxrx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It actually isn't about the amount of fiber that matters any more. To an ever increasing degree these strands are being lit with DWDM equipment. The few OC192's these folks are transmitting is a small portion of what's possible. Even without going into particularly exotic or ridiculously expensive equipment it's possible to push 80Gbps+ (e.g. 10 gigabytes per second - or a bit more than 16x the throughput mentioned in the article) out of a pair of strands. Upgrade to the bigger units (or wait a few months for the technology to improve) and this number goes way up.

      The net outcome here is that DWDM has made trans-Atlantic bandwidth surprisingly cheap. Assuming you're well connected to the right carrier hotels an OC3 or OC12 (..carried on a lambda on someone's DWDM equipment) between NYC and Amsterdam can often be had for substantially less than the same circuit between two arbitrary points within the US. With the kind of facilities available to major labs (..with major government backing in many cases) access to huge amounts of relatively cheap bandwidth is not the barrier it used to be.

    8. Re:Dark Fibre by infonography · · Score: 1

      Hence the massive use of outsourced tech support and other jobs but that has a good side for Us as well. Shorty we won't have to work local any more. Your programmers could work just off the beaches of Thailand or Spain, living in a place that's dirt cheap compared to Tokyo or Manhattan and have all the connectivity they need. Very 'Snowcrash' of us.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    9. Re:Dark Fibre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada has a gob of unlit dark fibre too. 360 networks set up shop here (actually born here) in the .com heyday. There are literally 20 million miles of unlit dark fibre in the ground (from 1996-1999). It's all sitting and gently getting older. I think that's why the cable tv companies are now offering 150 channels+VOIP(unlimited north american long distance calling) and 2.5MB/s broadband(no limit) for $50(Cdn) per month.

  8. Nothing to see here......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the internet you are looking for.

  9. Hey Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hey Blizzard. Knock knock. Take note. You have no excuse for WoW server problems now.

  10. Gimme that... by rmallico · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What i wanna know is when will it be available directly to my home.... Imagine all the p0rn you could download...

    --
    sig goes here!
  11. LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa! That's a lot of Large Hardon Collider porn...

  12. rr by robpoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dont know about you .. but my Road Runner is 5mbit/sec .. not 512k. That's only 25 years!

    But seriously. What do you transfer then? I mean, how many Libraries of Congress do you need sitting around on disk.

    --
    = Grow a brain...
    1. Re:rr by wed128 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This isn't really for consumer use, it's for scientists that need to transfer data from very sensitive, high-resolution, hi frequency instruments. The kind that haven't been invented yet, but will put out that much data. someday. maybe.

      Eh, nevermind...it's a pissing contest.

    2. Re:rr by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd be surprised at the amounts of data captured during experiments in high-energy physics - and keep in mind that this was 500 TB in a *week*, which is longer than you usually want to wait for your data transfer to complete.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:rr by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      your 5mbit downstream pales in comparison to comcasts/ool's 10, or fios's 25. But none of that downstream will help you send files, which is what the 512k was referencing (your rr is probably 316 or somewhere around there)

      As for what to send, Physics info works great, as thats what the story is about. For residential use, its all about p2p.
      When 10/10 is standard(VERY capped fiber) expect a nice p2p mounted filesystem, where instead of the traditional p2p process (search, trim results, download file, wait, watch/listen to file) it will be navigate filesystem, find what you want (probably sorted by metadata), watch it live, and store a cache of the file so as to not waste bandwidth when watching it again and so you can share it too.
      This could be done today on large lans (colleges, lan partys, etc), but noone has developed the tech. Using LUFS would make it pretty easy on linux, though for windows it will still be a pain, and no windows support cuts off a lot of potential files.
      Then theres always having the ability to up the density. We're already moving around hdtv divx for tvrips, but why not do full hdtv losslessly compressed if we had the bandwidth? divx is good enough to watch, but if you had the choice of getting rid of the pixelation on motion blur, why wouldnt you?

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    4. Re:rr by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      ...which is why they should probably REDUCE the data on-site, instead of sending it around the world on a massive grid. Isn't bandwidth generally more expensive than computing power these days?

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    5. Re:rr by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keep in mind that was 500 TB in a *metric week* -- 10 days. Those crazy physicists!

    6. Re:rr by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      It's expensive, and time consuming and would require every house to upgrade to more expensive hardware. In all reality, there isn't enough demand for super-high bandwidth except for people who need to download large amounts of data. Presently, most of those people are those who like to download large programs - generally programs that they should be buying instead of pirating.

      Yes I would like to have fibre running to my house. And I might notice the increase in speed when playing CounterStrike, downloading some large legal file, and allowing my g/f to surf the net from her wireless mac (bleh) - but I can do that, presently, with my 6 mbit comcast connection and it's pretty darn fast.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:rr by menscher · · Score: 1

      They *do* reduce it on-site. That's why they "only" need to transfer 500TB/week. You'd be amazed by the amount of data that gets taken, and thrown out, at a modern accelerator experiment. But I'll leave that for an experimentalist to talk about. (I'm just a lowly theorist.)

    8. Re:rr by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1

      ..or binary business weeks ;o)

      --
      /. is good for you.
    9. Re:rr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42

    10. Re:rr by mcrbids · · Score: 1
      This could be done today on large lans (colleges, lan partys, etc), but noone has developed the tech. Using LUFS would make it pretty easy on linux, though for windows it will still be a pain, and no windows support cuts off a lot of potential files.

      Hm. Sounds interesting. WTF is LUFS? Well, google turned up a freshmeat project which says:
      LUFS is a hybrid userspace filesystem framework supporting many "exotic" filesystems (localfs, sshfs, ftpfs, httpfs, socketfs, freenetfs, and nutellafs) transparently for any application. It can be regarded as doing the same job as the VFS (virtual filesystem switch) in the kernel: it is a switch, distributing the filesystem calls to its supported filesystems. However, LUFS filesystems are implemented in userspace. This would be a drawback for local filesystems where the access speed is important, but proves to be a huge advantage for networked filesystems where the userland flexibility is most important.
      What was that again? I've been using Linux (almost!) exclusively since 1999, and I can't make heads or tails of that! Looks sorta like the kitchen sink, fridge, and auto gas-tank all rolled up into one thingamajigger.

      Heh?

      When would I use LUFS? Why would I use LUFS? And how would this help me get the latest Britney Spears tunes?
      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    11. Re:rr by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      LUFS is something you as the end user would (hopefully) not see. Its a backend driver in the linux kernel that lets you program your filesystem driver as an application rather than as part of the kernel, so that if it crashes it doesnt take anything with it. Right now you might even be running it, the captive-ntfs project uses it. You run the captive installer, it compiles the module and installs it on its own, then you mount ntfs with no hastle.
      Right now what I'm personally using it for is mounting an ftp so that I can cd to a local directory and launch mp3s with mplayer and have them play just like local files. Its really nice tech, just badly documented for end users(That passage you pasted is about as good as it gets, and I agree fully on it not explaining anything)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  13. Re:That's a lot by breon.halling · · Score: 1

    I'm obviously not the only who thinks so. And here I thought I was being terribly clever. Man, I gotta get me some new material!

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  14. The real question is... by BigZaphod · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How many Library of Congress' is that?

    1. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An inclusive estimate of LOC (including images, recordings, etc) gives it at 3 petabytes and growing. You do the math.

      Interestingly, google doesn't seem (yet) to be able to convert terabytes to LOCs.

  15. 42 by ARRRLovin · · Score: 4, Funny

    And then they shut the thing down.

    --
    -Randy
    1. Re:42 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutdown is only temporary. 42 is meaningless with out $\pm$ stat. and $\pm$ syst. error bars.

  16. Cost by aerozeppl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thats great and all but none of us will be on anything like that for years. If Time Warner had that here they would charge one child a month. You would need 12 wives just to cover your internet bill.

    1. Re:Cost by precize · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know this makes me a horrible person, but technically, you would only need 9 wives...

    2. Re:Cost by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      You could get by with fewer if you use fertility meds.

      Though perhaps 12 is the number with redundancy built into the system.

      Damn I'm a sick bastard too.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:Cost by Elshar · · Score: 0


      Actually, you would need a few more to compensate for various fertility levels. 12 might do. Then each woman would give birth, and have 3 months to 'regenerate' and get fertile again. Might want to have 13-14 just for extra redundancy :)

    4. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll need an army of super virile men scoring round the clock! I'll do my part. Kif, clear my schedule

    5. Re:Cost by pipplo · · Score: 1

      who needs wives?

      (who is horrible now)

    6. Re:Cost by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      And you see a problem with this how? I wouldn't mind having 12 wives all pumping out kids and giving it to Time Warner. I might even have up to 15 wives so 3 of them can be at work all the time making money to support the rest of us :D

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:Cost by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a golf course to me :-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Cost by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      You'd have to put them into rotation though, so each wife gets a 6 month break between children. Just like crop rotation...

    9. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are one sick lady!

    10. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 6 if you overcock!

    11. Re:Cost by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      I know this makes me a horrible person, but technically, you would only need 9 wives...

      10 wives. Someone has to cook and clean while you're busy.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
  17. At last! by ArAgost · · Score: 5, Funny

    The perfect solution to connect my beowulf clusters!

  18. Re:That's a lot by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 1

    I sympathize with you. I hold the opinion that references to porn will ALWAYS be funny, no matter how "+1 Redundant" they are.

  19. Here we go again by dsplat · · Score: 1

    The total amount of data transmitted during this challenge -- 500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection."

    I guess it's time to upgrade my connection again.

    --
    The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
  20. Where is the torrent ? by 4nd3r5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ive been looking all over for it.

    --
    spelling is for people who doens't know better...
    1. Re:Where is the torrent ? by Armadni+General · · Score: 0

      "Where might I download the equipment needed to sustain so fast a connection that my comuter would most likely melt into a puddle of superheated metal and then form itself into limited edition commemorative coins?"

      Are you seeing the problem there? Mmkay, gooood.

  21. BROADER band? by dukeluke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting to note, the Internet2 just had a string of lawsuits pertaining to students using the service for illegal filesharing.

    Will this allow you to fileshare so fast that no one can even track it?? Now that would be interesting!

    Seriously though, after reading the article and the miscellaneous links. The numbers were astounding! In comparison to my own broadband, I can get 5 or 6 gigs downloaded in a VERY good day at most. Whereas this network enabled traffic of up to 50 terabytes a DAY! Woot woot! When can I hook up for it?

    1. Re:BROADER band? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Not really. If your computer is fast enough to d/l the data...someone elses computer is fast enough to get it too. The only thing is - since your d/l time will be shorter it will mean you are on the net a bit less.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:BROADER band? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1


      Seriously though, after reading the article and the miscellaneous links. The numbers were astounding! In comparison to my own broadband, I can get 5 or 6 gigs downloaded in a VERY good day at most. Whereas this network enabled traffic of up to 50 terabytes a DAY! Woot woot! When can I hook up for it?


      Where can I buy cheap, and I mean CHEAP, hard disk drives to save all this good stuff? I can't afford Pricewatch prices at that data rate.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    3. Re:BROADER band? by dukeluke · · Score: 1

      *sorry* My post was meant to be 'funny' in that there is currently no way of having an internet connection and data transfer without some type of log.

    4. Re:BROADER band? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think that we'll need faster DVD burners.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
  22. RIAA by rdurell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only 10 days? I guess the RIAA sent cease and desist letters.

  23. The REAL question everyone is asking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How many Library of congresses does this equal?

    1. Re:The REAL question everyone is asking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the law suit..

      They just transfered the first seven letters of the title of every song that is ever going to be written. Thats copyright infringment.

      Thats billions of $$$$$$

  24. 512 kb? by Samus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that 512kb typical household broadband speed upload or download? I guess for upload that makes sense since most broad band connections are not symmetrical. Download is a different story. I have about 3.5 on a dsl and that is fairly typical for the cable guys as well.

    --
    In Republican America phones tap you.
    1. Re:512 kb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! so, with your great connection, it would only take 35 years! I can hold my breath longer than that!

    2. Re:512 kb? by Stween · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are. In the UK, the standard base package for ADSL is 256up/512down, with varying download bandwidths into the Mbps.

    3. Re:512 kb? by alex_ware · · Score: 1

      No in the UK its 2mbps as of this month, depending on provider. Seriously we're going to 20mbps by the end of the decade.

      --
      If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
    4. Re:512 kb? by Stween · · Score: 1

      It depends on your local exchange. Bulldog offer 4Mbps broadband, I recall reading about them offering 6Mbps downstream on a handful of exchanges as well. ukonline are offering 8Mbps broadband.

      It all boils down to BT increasing the capabilities of their exchanges as demand increases, and also on how close you are to the exchange.

  25. 640 MB/sec by scovetta · · Score: 5, Funny

    "640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates, 1981

    "640MB/sec ought to be enough for anybody." --Me, /., 2005

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    1. Re:640 MB/sec by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      Just think, in a few years your wrist watch will be able to handle this data flow.

    2. Re:640 MB/sec by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      "640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates, 1981

      "640MB/sec ought to be enough for anybody." --Me, /., 2005


      "It's never enough...for anybody." -- Me, /., 2005

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    3. Re:640 MB/sec by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      "640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates, 1981

      "640MB/sec ought to be enough for anybody." --Me, /., 2005

      "It's never enough...for anybody." -- Me, /., 2005


      "Too much is never enough." MTV, 1983

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  26. Seeing as how I'm on dial-up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad I have GetRight.

  27. woooow.... by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Imagine where the porn industry could go in 2007

    1. Re:woooow.... by Lispy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Slightly offtopic, but as of now they are only recording stuff. This is not interactive at all. I am really surprised that there is no company that does real cool Anime pron with interactivity. One would think there would be a million dollar company out there getting it. They started out with softporn beachvolleyball when the Xbox didn't take off, but let's let id-software develop the engine and think about something real neat. I am supposed to live in the century of Cyberpunk and we don't get 3D, interactive pron? Come on. And, NO, Poser makes real creepy lifeless 3D models.

      Or am I plain wrong? Links anyone? ;-)

    2. Re:woooow.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, WTF is wrong with you.

    3. Re:woooow.... by Signal_Noise · · Score: 0

      I'll get right on that, then. Let's all pitch in, and buy the Final Fantasy engine so that we can all give it to Rinoa in realtime.

  28. Not really. by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful


    More to the point, the time it would take to get the data onto and off the tapes is left out of your argument. The bandwidth of a truck full of tapes is an old argument, but they're just so damn slow at both endpoints, they're not that useful after all :-(

    When the data arrives through a network pipe, it's on disk ready to be crunched through whatever program you're running...

    8 or 9 years ago, I used to work in the post-production industry in Soho, London. There's a network called 'Sohonet' where lots of the major post-houses had ATM links to each other (hey, ATM was blazingly fast for the time :-) instead of sending runners with bags full of tapes. It was worth the expense of digging the road and installing the network for them, even then with the slower network.

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Not really. by Stween · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When the data arrives through a network pipe, it's on disk ready to be crunched through whatever program you're running...

      600 Megs a second. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of disk technology can handle that level of throughput. They must have some amount of buffering going on, hand in hand with the bonus that they're probably able to just stream the data to arrays of disks without really being too concerned about placement (I'm assuming the data transfer is essentially a sequential stream of data, not sodding great numbers of small files, of course).

    2. Re:Not really. by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      600 Megs a second. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of disk technology can handle that level of throughput.

      Maybe they're just piped to /dev/null. It's not you can't measure throughput without saving the data.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    3. Re:Not really. by Stween · · Score: 1

      That's true, yes; I was just picking up on Space cowboy's implying that disks are uber-fast, when in fact the polar opposite is the case :)

    4. Re:Not really. by cohomology · · Score: 1

      The argument that mailing tapes is too slow because you have to copy from disk to tape to disk is partially true, but there is a simple solution.

      Just mail a disk!

      A further improvement comes from using an old networking observation: It's easier to detect errors and retransmit than to prevent errors. So use really cheap IDE drives and don't bother packing the disks carefully. Just remail the ones that get damaged.

      I remember hearing that some physics projects already do this.

      --
      Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
    5. Re:Not really. by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      It was 600 MB/sec, not necessarily one experiment producing 600 MB/sec. Divide and conquer onto multiple RAIDs if you're using linux boxes. Problem solved.

      Or use a high-end SGI box or Sun box with multiple SCSI channels bonded into one filesystem with xlv (or the sun equivalent). Each channel goes to a different RAID. Problem solved.

      Or ... (there are loads of ways to do it, just by dividing the bandwidth up into manageable chunks). Problem solved.

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    6. Re:Not really. by UberLame · · Score: 1

      There is also the option of shipping small PCs loaded with large IDE disks and a GigE card. Should be faster than many tape drives, albeit not quite as reliable. I seem to recall someone reporting that as what they did in some issue of the ACM Queue.

      --
      I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
    7. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  29. Ha... by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 3, Funny

    500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection

    Well, I've got a 3 megabit connection! It'd only take...uh...well, 42 years or so...but I'd upgrade to that 1 gigabit connection they have in Asia before it finished...

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  30. New unit of time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose a new unit for measuring time: the household-broadband terabyte. I'm 50 household-broadband terabytes old, how about you? Sorry if I seem a little loopy; I only got 1 millihousehold-broadband terrabyte of sleep.

  31. What was Really Transmitted.. by Striikerr · · Score: 2, Funny

    What was not revealed in the article, was that the majority of the data was composed of pictures of Goatse and TubGirl in ultra-high resolution..

  32. WOW! One copy of SimplyMEPIS per second... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    At that rate it would still take a little over 3 years to give every family in the USA one copy of SimplyMEIPS from that single pipe.

    Now, with a dozen pipes like that the task could be done in a month....

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  33. The Geeks at Cern... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are now drowning in their own spooge....

  34. Standard terms by Quixote · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is with these non-standard terms like "Terabytes" and "Megabytes"? Please re-state the bandwidth and the amount of data tranferred in LoCs (Libraries of Congress) and KLoCs (Kilo Libraries of Congress) so that the rest of the world can understand the magnitude of this achievement.

    1. Re:Standard terms by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that raises the interesting point of whether they transferred 500 terabytes (500 x 10^12 bytes / 500000000000000 bytes) or 500 tebibytes (500 x 2^40 bytes / 549755813888000 bytes)? In the kibibyte/kilobyte range which prefix you use doesn't make much difference (~2.4 % difference), but at tebi/terabyte range it kinda does (~9.5 % difference).

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Standard terms by patio11 · · Score: 1
      I've generally found its easier to express big numbers to people in terms of kiloBibles. (1 Bible = 4.24 MB, at least if you take the ASCII English King James Version w/o commentary)

      So thats, lets see, 123,652,830 Bibles and about a Torah worth of change transferred, or a sustainted transfer rate of 141 Bps (Bibles per second), with enough room to send an extra Old Testament over the wire every second, too.

    3. Re:Standard terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we are talking about computers, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes. A megabyte is 1024 x 1024 bytes. A gigabyte is 1024x1024x1024 bytes. A terabyte is 1024x1024x1024x1024 bytes, and a petabyte is 1024x1024x1024x1024x1024 bytes.
      in Short:
      Kilobyte=2^10=1024 bytes
      Megabyte=2^20=1048576 bytes
      Gigabyte=2^30=1073741824 bytes
      Terabyte=2^40=1099511627776 bytes
      Petabyte=2^50=1125899906842624 bytes
      (and there are 8 bits per byte when using ASCII), (on a computer everything is base 2, since the wiring inside a computer switches transistors either off, or on (2 states). This concludes your physics lesson of the day, we now return you to your regularly scheduled slashdot reading, already in progress.

    4. Re:Standard terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, good post

    5. Re:Standard terms by helfen · · Score: 1

      How Big Is 33.5 Terabytes? (however some infos about Wayback Machine go out of date; for now it's quite possible that WM contains approximately 1 petabyte of data and is currently growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month).

      The Library of Congress (20 million books, not counting pictures) - 20 terabytes

  35. What is there in it for Joe Sixpack? by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I have a broadband connection. My laptop is always online. But what do I do? Check email, check /., check email again, check /., check /. THATS IT! (and ofcourse a bit of surfing here and there). The current bandwidth is kind of sufficient. I wish I had more when I try to download movies or files, but then I can live with it.

    Imaging 2007, *AA has made it almost impossible to download any content. So I'm sitting on 600 MB/sec of BW and checking /. and reading emails.

    1. Re:What is there in it for Joe Sixpack? by Norgus · · Score: 1

      Your forgetting to download linux distros..

  36. Important by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    It's good that they're speeding this thing up. One day, all homes will have this kind of broadband connection coming in. This will be a necessity because all television programming, telecommunications, and other functions will take place over this network. When you rent a movie, you won't have to wait for a DVD to come in the mail. It will instantly be there and ready for you to watch. When you download pr0n, you won't have to wait for it to get there, losing your current state of passion. This is going to be extremely important for the twenty-first century.

  37. alternatively.. by vladb · · Score: 0

    I was wondering why the need for so much data.. couldn't they possibly process the vast portions of experimental data "locally", within same network for greater bandwidth throughput. And simply send over processed, summarized chucnks of data?

    Unless, of course, this is just a case of a scientific exercise to find out how much of 'any' data could be sent across.

  38. Re:WOW! One copy of SimplyMEPIS per second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, the Internet surely has evolved. One day, we'll be able to piss people off with a shitty Debian-based distribution at a rate far faster than ever before!

  39. That's nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you probably can't get it without also having your Local and Long Distance bundled through them as well.

  40. 512Kb is too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    512Kb is only 64k/s. I get closer to 3200Kb (400k/s) on my road runner connection.

    1. Re:512Kb is too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... geez, you're smart

    2. Re:512Kb is too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sure as shit isn't your upstream.

  41. Try it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection."

    DSL is rock solid. Lies, all of them. I'll be the first to try moving my 500 terabytes of uhm, research videos, to this here other harddrive.

  42. Problem is... by suitepotato · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...the cult of Einstein still prevails so all the information will be discarded as inconvenient to their theories. When they get tired of being contradicted by experimental results, they'll download porn and after finally getting some, lose interest in pocket protectors and science freeing up the accellarators for serious usage by junior geeks including impressing girls with "look at the size of my collider" lines, heavy-duty nanowelding, investigating useful things like warp travel, and of course Ghostbusting.

    Or not in which case we've got a nifty new thing in the toolbox for science on planet Earth.

    Could go either way.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:Problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? It should be insightful given that it sounds like most scientists that I know.

  43. LoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  44. Typical? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    The total amount of data transmitted during this challenge -- 500 terabytes -- would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband connection

    Thats why I d/l at 6 Mbits/ second.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:Typical? by ultramk · · Score: 1

      Thats why I d/l at 6 Mbits/ second.

      So that would only take you... what, only 20.83 years or so? Yeah, that's WAY better.

      I can't understand the measurements they're using... can someone state this in terms of Libraries of Congress per second?
      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    2. Re:Typical? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Well according to wikipedia its estimated, that the library of congress (in text) is about 15-17 terrabytes. So that ranges from about 29 - 33 Libraries of Congress.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  45. 600 megabytes per second on average for 10 days by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    We all know that scientist have HDTV and the good pron!

  46. Not sure why this is completely notable by rnxrx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    600 MB/sec = 4.8 Gb/sec.

    OK... they lit up the equivalent of two OC48's worth of bandwidth. That's half of an OC192 or a 10G Ethernet. There have been long haul OC192's for a number of years now. If I hook up a hardware-based traffic generator and run at 100% over an OC192 for a few weeks will I get a slashdot article, too?

    1. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1
      If I hook up a hardware-based traffic generator and run at 100% over an OC192 for a few weeks will I get a slashdot article, too?

      If you do so on a worldwide scale and use that infrastructure to solve the fundamental questions of physics, yes. It's not supposed to be that technologically amazing, it's just a progress report and a proof of concept.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to store those 500 terabytes as they come in.
      Again, that's not incredibly special - 1000 500G hard drives for storage, and a 600 megabyte/sec rate from parallelising over ~20 of them, with no bottlenecks and (presumably) full redundancy. But it's just a fraction of what this grid will be, and it's already out of the league of anyone who isn't a megacorporation.

    3. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by stefanb · · Score: 4, Interesting
      OK... they lit up the equivalent of two OC48's worth of bandwidth. That's half of an OC192 or a 10G Ethernet. There have been long haul OC192's for a number of years now. If I hook up a hardware-based traffic generator and run at 100% over an OC192 for a few weeks will I get a slashdot article, too?

      The accomplishment is not in the data rate, it's in the ability of the participating organisation's to get a stable network going. One that is close enough to the one that the real scientists will be using in a couple of years.

      Consider that there's a large number of institutes, universities, etc. that all have their own IT departments, plus all the physicists that have to be involved because it's their grant money funding all this. It's thousands of people coordinating. And I would be surprised if they hadn't set up different service classes, priorisation schemes and what not.

      Setting up a trivial network between a couple of sites that are all under your control is close to trivial: you just need to talk to you telco and buy the lines, and hook up the routers. But establishing a working network between these many institutions takes a lot more.

    4. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      They sustained it. Via several hops across the atlantic, over a week.

      This is important because the experiment will create more data than can be stored there, so it has to be dumped "into the grid". If the datarate couldnt be sustained, data would be lost.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by tsrimovsky · · Score: 1

      The probably used TCP which is no mean trick. I have a lot of questions about exactly what it took, but don't marginalize it. Those average speeds over a long time period imply either a remarkably clean network and well tuned hosts, or peaks far above the average rate.

      Hardware testers push bits with less intellegence than your average undergraduate.

    6. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      If I hook up a hardware-based traffic generator and run at 100% over an OC192 for a few weeks will I get a slashdot article, too?

      Probably yes, if you route the traffic to a major e-commerce site.

      5 Gbps sustained is indeed not that much traffic, and the underground grid computing community probably has gone beyond that by now.

    7. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but you'd get a pretty big bill... ;p

    8. Re:Not sure why this is completely notable by madsdyd · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, you seem to miss the bigger picture, with lots of different people involved.

      Also, 600 MB/sec is 5.9 Gb/sec using standard conventions for using 1024 for B and 1000 for b.

  47. MPAA & RIAA by killtherat · · Score: 5, Funny

    On a related note, CERN is now being sued by the MPAA & RIAA. A spokesmen was commented, saying, "Obviously with 500 terabytes of data being transmitted on the internet, at least some of it had to be copyrighted materials represented by the RIAA and the MPAA. As we know, the internet and communication grids serve no real purpose other then to pirate movies and music."
    The lawsuit is expected to destroy CERN and any sort of decent networking research anybody was even thinking about doing for the next 50 year.

    1. Re:MPAA & RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CERN responded by reminding the RIAA and MPAA that they are an international organisation which is exempt from pretty much every law which they haven't written themselves.

      Seriously, CERN staff are international civil servants and therefore have Diplomatic Immunity from prosecution for any civil or criminal laws they break in the execution of their duties. The RIAA would have to request the Director General deport the staff member concerned before they could be sued.

    2. Re:MPAA & RIAA by coopex · · Score: 1

      Sweet! I'll be mild-mannered experimental physicist by day, the most feared assasian in the world by night! MWAHAHAHA!!!

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  48. my fellow americans by mr+al+gore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd like to take a partial credit for this if that's okay.

  49. Re:WOW! One copy of SimplyMEPIS per second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Running with Linux for over 7 years!

    Wow, do you stop to go to the bathroom?

  50. Dawn of the megasphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . or was it the datumplane?
    any Simmons fans out there?

  51. Screw that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to know where I can find a pussy this big!! Can you imagine what it would feel like to fuck something like that?!! I love big pussy, and this would definitely qualify as big.

  52. It's the answer! by millennial · · Score: 3, Funny

    Time required by my home internet connection, 3mbps, to transfer this data: 41.6666666... years. Rounded to one sig fig, since 500TB is: 42 years. It really IS the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:It's the answer! by millennial · · Score: 1

      OK, so it's two sig figs. Crap. Let's just say "rounded" instead. /me goes off to do some remedial math...

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  53. 3D Interactive Anime Porn Torrents here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.hongfire.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6 5

  54. the data wasn't porn... by unixsource · · Score: 0

    I read somewhere that it was actually three copies of Bill Clinton's book.

  55. That's a lot of porn! by d_jedi · · Score: 1

    nt

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  56. Imagine the governing of behavior by 514CK3R · · Score: 0

    With as much issue as is being made over blogging and cams today, imagine what they will be trying to govern behaviorally at 600 Meg? At ISDN speed there was "warez awareness". 1 Meg, The RIAA and DMCA jumps on us. Now people are having work and legal issues over cameras and blogs. Add Trusted Computing into the situation and pow! no more data safety at all. Of course at that speed everything can run at full length totally encrypted, but could you imagine the buss speed required to compute at that level?

  57. Dark Fibre by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dark Fibre

    The Metamucil of choice by all Lord Siths

  58. Lofar project by photonic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet. Today eight major computing centers successfully completed a challenge to sustain a continuous data flow of 600 megabytes per second ...
    I don't know how fair the comparison is, but I think the Lofar project will be a heavy contestant for the claim of the experiment with the highest data rate. It is basically a array of some 10000 radio antennas, spread over the northern part of the Netherlands and Germany. It will be operated as one huge phased array.

    The data rate might even be bigger than at Cern: 20 terrabit/sec straight after the A/D converters and still a mighty 0.4 terrabit/sec after the initial data reduction (DSPs + FPGAs). All the remaining data will be transfered over a dedicated fiber network to a central computer. To reduce all this data they need a big fat supercomputer, this will be a IBM Blue Gene with serial number 2, to be handed over tomorrow. For the moment it will be the fastest computer in Europe and ranking somewhere in the top 10 of the world.
    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    1. Re:Lofar project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi

      LOFAR comes in very close to the LHC in terms of data rate. LOFAR people like to boast about this high data rate, but all that data is going over a more-or-less private special-purpose network as your post said.

      the LHC experiment called ATLAS will have a rate of about 40 TB/sec straight after the A/D converters. On the detector frame itself is a bunch of special hardware to cut this down, and finally a farm just outside the detector to do initial pattern recognition and discard 'junk' collisions -- resulting output rate (onto the Grid) of about 100 MB/sec per detector.

      LOFAR's stuff will travel over the dedicated net to a computer in Groningen called "Blue Gene" (IBM) where the antenna signals will be correlated. Data from there will go out onto the Grid (probably ... they haven't nailed down their computing model yet) at a somewhat smaller rate (again they think it's smaller, but the model is uncertain) than that for the LHC experiments.

      The big difference is our (LHC) final filter is more or less colocated with the detector, where as LOFARs is kilometers away; but otherwise it's the same.

  59. Spam by zioncity · · Score: 1

    With all the vulnerabilities in Longhorn, yeah... secure OS my ass.... the theory that any new network advances in speed, will just be saturated at the rate of about 65-85% with Spam and Malicous attacks and hijacked PCs doing their thing. Oh yeah... porn downloads and torrenting.. do not forget that too.

    So with all this new potential global network speed increases we may reap... those silly bastards out there will just gum it up with the useless 2 out of 3, spam, windows viruses and attacks... but porn, that is okay as we all have our needs. :-P

  60. dataflow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " When it begins operations in 2007, it will produce roughly 15 Petabytes (15 million Gigabytes) of data annually, which thousands of scientists around the world will access and analyse..." I mean, uh oh.. that's something like 19 megabytes/second ? *collapses* Of course the data flow will not be continous, but.... wow.. huhuh :)

  61. 512? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is 512 a typical household connection? Maybe back in the days Clinton, when boy-bands roamed the earth...

  62. In related news... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    A small canister with the CERN logo was found in the home of the RIAA/MPAA. According to security officials, "We cannot find this canister as it is hidden, and the culprit utilized one of our wireless cameras. The interesting thing about this transparant container with a count-down timer is that it has a floating ball of what looks like silver in the middle of it."

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  63. Somewhere on Naboo.. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seth Lord and RIAA Chief Mitch Bainwol, felt a sudden disturbance in the force. It was a like a thousand music producers and label execs suddenly cried out in grief and dispair.

    sri

  64. 250 Years? Bah... by Eyeball97 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It would only take 247.73274987316083206494165398275 years. I wish these articles would check their facts. 247.73274987316083206494165398275 I could live with. I think at 250 I'd start to get impatient...

    1. Re:250 Years? Bah... by Zone-MR · · Score: 2, Funny

      247.73274987316083206494165398275 I could live with.

      Yeah, and if you factor leap years into your calculation, the number is 247.56318604710117372677263163232 ;)

  65. Of course by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    What kind of hardware are you writing to? I dont know of any home equipment that will sustain that speed. Can anyone give me some insight into what would be able to store the data as fast as it came in?

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does not have to be stored...
      in in the sumary they mention networks
      plural more then 2 machiens...

  66. ...and it was all p2p / bittorrent trafic by pigfukr · · Score: 0

    who'd 'a thunk?

    --
    pigfukr
  67. Illegal Units by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Should they transfer 1024 Terabytes and store it all in one chunk, they will have a PetaFile.

  68. That's easy. by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have 600,000,000 hard drives in a striped RAID array. Then you only have to store 1 byte per second.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  69. MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MPAA math: One movie per second x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x $20 x 3 people watching per movie = 1.89 billion dollars in lost revenue per year!

    MPAA conclusion: All computers should come with a MPAA backdoor.

  70. and now for something completely different.... by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Funny

    but can even move faster than light on a bicycle?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  71. Crikey! by serutan · · Score: 1

    600 megabytes per second for 10 days -- that's one hell of an mp3 collection.

    1. Re:Crikey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the RIAA that means you owe them 5 bagillion dollars since of course you would have paid for ever single one. The starving artists can't feed there children because of it.

      Couldn't resist.

    2. Re:Crikey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, the mp3 collection transfers you!

  72. Clearly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ISP probably subsribes to RIAA's "code of conduct" for ISP's. This required them to notify RIAA notice of this "unusually high" use of bandwidth as "substantially indicative of copyright infringement." Consequently, RIAA got a collection agency to send a bill for $10,000,000,000.

  73. what data was used ? by kalganian · · Score: 1

    dont know if it's interesting... but wonder what data was sent at 600 megabytes per second on average for 10 days.

    1. Re:what data was used ? by blargosity · · Score: 1

      /dev/zero maybe?

  74. Transporter Beam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can think of one application that would eat up
    that bandwidth pretty quickly - building a
    transporter beam for a human. Now, using very
    rough order of magnitude calculations, let's
    figure out how long it would take to send the
    amount of information required to specify the
    location of each atom in my body with sufficient
    precision to reassemble on the far side. I'm
    made up of around 10**27 atoms and each one's
    position would need to be specified to the
    nearest 0.1 nanometers in X, Y and Z. Assuming
    I can do this in 10 bytes per particle (not
    really enough, but I'm prepared to be fuzzed
    up a little bit by the transporter process)
    then I'd need to ship 10**28 bytes in order to
    reconstruct a human. At 6x10**8 bytes/second,
    I'd have to wait for around 10**19 seconds
    to get transported - if there are 3x10**7 seconds
    in a year, we're still talking about more than
    terayear to do the deed... I'd say we need
    more bandwidth... Lots more bandwidth...

  75. 500TB of what? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    one must wonder what that 500TB consisted of that was transferred. was it the same file over and over again? was it just one gigantic file? was it randomly generated bits? or was it... bittorrent?

    1. Re:500TB of what? by hawkeye_82 · · Score: 0

      one must wonder what that 500TB consisted of

      Physics data. Every single data file is somewhere between 500 MB to 2 GB. All the data that gets generated by the LHC is split into files that are this big. The difference in file sizes is maintain some level of continuity in the data.

  76. PORN by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    PORN

    eom

    (can't believe I haven't seen one of those with a FUNNY yet)

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  77. transfer to where? by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    from /dev/zero to /dev/null?

  78. 500TB of what? by ryanw · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of that 500TB wasn't pr0n.

  79. Not with my connection! by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 1

    Thanks to Speakeasy, it'll only take 20 years to download this at my house! Suckers!

  80. From the article by colores · · Score: 1

    Current milestone: 600MB/s for 10 days
    Target: 1500MB/s for 10 years

  81. A little late for Doom3 by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    Don't you think.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  82. Mirrored Disk Drives by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Disk drives are a bit under $1/GB these days (you'll need a few extra controller cards etc for convenience, so round up.) So 500TB is about $500K, and you can build some kind of RAID-like thingy that lets you pop the racks out onto a Fedex truck without wasting the amount of time copying to tape would take.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mirrored Disk Drives by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      As pointed out above, the fastest tape drives in existence today are in many cases faster than hard drives. The Ultrium 960 has a sustained transfer rate of 160MB/sec. The best Ultra320 SCSI or Fibre Channel drive I've yet found can't match this transfer rate. Now, a RAID array of such drives can, but it's still something of a chore to find any array that can maintain a sustained 160MB/sec for days on end.

      So, in short, the tape drive speed isn't necessarily the limiting factor here.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  83. Use units I know! by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    how many libraries of congress per hour is that?

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  84. Outsourcing and Dark Fiber and open telecoms by billstewart · · Score: 1
    The Internet means that anybody can work from anywhere in the civilized world that they want to, which is why for some reason everybody moved to Silicon Valley during the Internet Boom, though some of the 80s-computer-boom generation did move to places like Oregon or Colorado to grow grapes and telecommute now that they had consulting contacts (an occasional plane trip can get you to SF to meet customers in person when you need to or buy designer drugs that you can't grow locally.) And I do know a number of people who've moved to random college towns outside CA and NYC, because they get the lifestyle they want at more rational prices, though some have had to resort to becoming academics to get away with it :-)

    India has only partially realized the Boom, because they only partially implemented telecom liberalization. For instance, there are hundreds of gigabits per second of fiber going BY India's cable heads, but only a few GB actually able to drop there, because the VSNL good-old-former-monopoly-boys still have their hooks into it. They've loosened up enough that there *is* a booming call center business, but it's not like you can actually get wavelengths delivered to Bangalore for prices that have any relationship to the cost of installing them.

    China's somewhat the same way, though they're starting to get better. Their government is still hopelessly obsessed with censorship, so it's hard to install infrastructure that's too fast for them to wiretap, but they're gradually getting things done because the ex-commies are now making money.

    Thailand is a tougher case. Their geography gets really rough and wrinkly once you're more than a few km outside of Bangkok or a few other big cities, and they've still got something that acts like an old corrupt PTT. It's getting better, but it'll be a while before you can really telecommute from Phuket, and the tsunami didn't help anything. Similarly, Costa Rica has amazing geography, being located where Central and South America squish into each other, but they only need a couple of fibers to get San Jose and Cartago on the net - but the telecom bureaucrats are kleptocracy that's trying to criminalize VOIP because it cuts into their profit margins rather than encouraging it because it creates jobs for people who aren't their buddies.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  85. sounds like a lot... by armed+ahmed · · Score: 1
    When the LHC starts operating in 2007, it will be the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet, producing more than 1500 megabytes of data every second for over a decade.

    ...but when that ten years is gone, that's about as much as an average persons warez d/l rate...

    well _above_ average persons...

    what did moore's law say about this data transfer stuff, anyway?

  86. How much??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would they charge an arm and a leg, or a left nut.
    I'd go for it if it was only a left nut, as It would cause me severe cramps in my one hand I have left jumping from keyboard to mouse to lube to crotch.
    I'm just sayin'.

  87. etstw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Come on over here, baby, I want to do a thing with you." - A Cop, arresting a non-groovy person after the revolution, Firesign Theater

  88. funny but true by nashy-nunu · · Score: 0

    They are still people using 56k to connect to the internet. They are so happy that they got web accelator for free [SO FAST] Those people can't handlle this type of speed. Heck they don't know what a Tera means

  89. Pshhhh, you guys got it good by Kn1nJa · · Score: 1

    It would take me approximately 2800.5405715432815703818413845514 years or 2801 rounded to download 500 terabytes on my crappy dialup connection (which is even shared with another computer). So quit complaining that you'd have to spend a measley 200 years or so to download it, since by the time the file is half done, science will have found a way to make people live longer so you could actually be alive when your download finished. No amount of scientific advances could make me live 2801 years.........

    --
    [Insert Witty Sig Here]
  90. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would take about 250 years to download using a typical 512 kilobit per second household broadband

    How long would it take on a "typical 56k household dialup connection"?

  91. Re:12 Wives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but he lives in Utah.....