Slashdot Mirror


Bandwidth Challenge Results

the 1st sandman writes "SC2005 published some results of several challenges including bandwidth utilization. The winner (a Caltech led team of several institutes) was measured at 130 Gbps. On their site you can find some more information on their measurements and the equipment they used. They claimed they had a throughput of several DVD movies per second. How is that for video on demand!"

9 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Sponsors? by simpleguy · · Score: 4, Funny


    The Bandwidth Challenge, sponsored by the good fellows at the MPAA and RIAA. I think they forgot to put their logos on the sponsor page.

  2. Probably not enough DVDs/sec by xtal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love arbitrary metrics..


    They claimed they had a throughput of several DVD movies per second. How is that for video on demand!"


    Given you might need to serve a few thousand people an hour (or more?), I'd say it's still got awhile to go. Kinda sobering, when you think about it. Shiny discs and station wagons are going to be around for awhile.

    --
    ..don't panic
  3. Whatever you do... by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't tell the MPAA - they already tell people you can download an entire DVD movie over a 56K phone link in 15 minutes - imagine what they would tell people how much money they lose per second with this new high speed connection!

  4. farthings per furlong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or Libraries of Congress per second. DVDs per second isn't a useful rate, unless you're transferring lots of DVDs in a series - which few people do. The much more interesting bandwidth unit is "simultaneous DVDs", multiples of 1.32MBps, 1x DVD speed (9x CD speed). 130GBps is something like 101KDVD:s, which means an audience could watch 101 thousand different DVDs on demand simultaneously over that pipe. That's probably enough for most American cities to have fully interactive TV.

  5. So that means.. by craznar · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... you could transfer the entire library of quality hollywood movies in 4 seconds.

    What do we do next ?

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  6. Missing infrastructure by aktzin · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "They claimed they had a throughput of several DVD movies per second. How is that for video on demand!"

    This is nothing but an impressive statistic until ISPs provide this kind of bandwidth into homes (the infamous "last mile" connection). Not to mention that even the fastest hard drives available to consumers can't write data this fast.

    --
    Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  7. Re:LOC'ed in. by phatslug · · Score: 4, Informative

    130 Gbps = 0.0158691406 terabytes per second (using google)
    1 Library of congress is 20TB
    1 Fortnight is 1209600s
    0.0158691406 x 1209600 = 19195.31247
    At 130Gbps after 1 fortnight 19195.31247TB would be transfered
    19195.31247/20 = 959.77 Libraries of Congress per fortnight.

  8. Re:They used Linux 2.6 kernel by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Already is. From the looks of Lightfleet, and some of the other people at SC2005 who didn't have tables but DID have information, Linux is being taken very seriously in the bandwidth arena.


    The problem with latency is that everyone lies about the figures. I talked to some of the NIC manufacturers and got quoted the latency of the internal logic, NOT the latency of the card as a whole, and certainly not the latency of the card when integrated. There was one excellent-sounding NIC - until you realized that the bus wasn't native but went through a whole set of layers to be converted into the native system, and that the latency of these intermediate steps, PLUS the latencies of the pseudo-busses it went through, never figured in anywhere. You then had to add in the latency of the system's bus as well. In the end, I reckoned that you'd probably get data out at the end of the week.


    I also saw at SC2005 that the architectures sucked. The University of Utah was claiming that clusters of Opterons didn't scale much beyond 2 nodes. Whaaaa???? They were either sold some VERY bad interconnects, or used some seriously crappy messaging system. Mind you, the guys at the Los Alamos stand had to build their packet collation system themselves, as the COTS solution was at least two orders of magnitude too slow.


    I was impressed with the diversity at SC2005 and the inroads Open Source had made there, but I was seriously disgusted by the level of sheer primitiveness of a lot of offerings, too. Archaic versions of MPICH do not impress me. LAM might, as would LAMPI. OpenMPI (which has a lot of heavy acceleration in it) definitely would. The use of OpenDX because (apparently) OpenGL is "just too damn slow" was interesting - but if OpenDX is so damn good, why hasn't anyone maintained the code in the past three years? (I'd love to see OpenGL being given some serious competition, but that won't happen if the code is left to rot.)


    Microsoft - well, their servers handed out cookies. Literally.

    --
    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)
  9. Re:LOC'ed in. by Doppler00 · · Score: 4, Funny

    More importantly, how many letters from MPAA lawyers does that equal per second?