Slashdot Mirror
New Data Transmission Speed Record
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmag is reporting that a team of German and Japanese scientists have collaborated to shatter the world record for data transmission speed. From the article: "By transmitting a data signal at 2.56 terabits per second over a 160-kilometer link (equivalent to 2,560,000,000,000 bits per second or the contents of 60 DVDs) the researchers bettered the old record of 1.28 terabits per second held by a Japanese group. By comparison, the fastest high-speed links currently carry data at a maximum 40 Gbit/s, or around 50 times slower."
Anti-Slashdoting for a webhost.
What kind of measurement is that? Why can't we use something everyone understands like u-haul trucks full of dvd's driving 100 kilometers per fortnight*10^(-6)?
For the uninitiated, that's a microfortnight.
Precisely why I read slashdot and fark, but not digg.
Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.
Fark has the time sensitive or humorous news, with clever or funny comments.
Digg is somewhere in the middle, with the immature comments or spam I can find in an AIM chat room if I need it.
How much it is in terms of "a station wagon full of magtape" or Library of Congress.
s _of_measurement#Books_and_Bibles _of_measurement#Library_of_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_unit
Wow, converting to MPAA units that's 300 years of jail time per second! Smokin!
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
and storage in KB? It's not like we measure radio waves in cycles per second and sound waves in cycles per 8 seconds. What's the advantage?
into the real world, right? Why are they developing nuclear pebble bed reactors in laboratories, when I can't buy one at the 7-11 yet?
Well folks, time to gear up.
;-)
We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate
I'm calling my cable company to see if I can pay $25,000/month to get the data rate. Needless to say this will increase the downloads of my extremely intelligent blog.
Equivalent to 160,000 metres and 160,000,000 millimetres!
Vista will require this much bandwidth as a minimum, to download security patches and have them rendered in erotic 3D by the compulsory 4Tb graphics card, when it is released in THE YEAR 3000.
Three different answers for what boils down to a grade school story problem. At least we know you three didn't cheat from each other.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
...and in related news, the spokesman for the MPAA is currently unable to comment due to suffering a heart attack.
Digg is great for learning of new technologies. Slashdot is great because of its discussions. They are complementary websites. I don't see digg replacing slashdot anytime soon, yet, I am glad that digg is there to fill my need of having "as many tech news as possible" available.
Trying to have good discussions in Digg is futile because of its moderation system. And whenever discussion worthy news are available they are quickly buried by ten articles of what someone somewhere might have said about the color of the new Nintendo console.
Cheers,
Adolfo
At 100Km/hour, a truck would require 1.6 hours * 60^2 seconds/hour = 5,760 seconds to travel 160 kilometers. At 60 DVDs/second, the truck would have to be carrying 5760*60 = 345,600 DVDs to have equivalent bandwidth. A typical DVD in a case is 14cm wide, 19cm tall, and 1.5cm thick, for a total volume of 399 cm^3 (lets round to 400cm^3). Therefore, the truck would have to have a cargo volume of 400cm^3 * 345,600 = 138,240,000cm^3, or 138.24m^3.
Now, typical intermodal containers (as used on big rig trucks) are 8.5' by 8.5' by 40', or 2890ft^3. Converted to metric, this is about 82m^3, which is less than the 138.24m^3 required.
In other words, no, a truck full of DVDs is NOT faster than this connection!*
*unless you put the DVDs on spindles instead of in cases.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
To be sure, I believe this is a single-wavelength transmission record. For WDM (multiwavelength), I believe Alcatel's 2002 record of 10 Tbps over 3 x 100 km still hasn't been topped (Frignac et al, OFC 2002).
The target use for something like this is Internet backbone traffic, so the question is whether Cisco will be able to deliver a router that will keep the line busy. Cisco's web site says "the innovative 12000 Terabit System scales to 5 Terabits (Tbps) per second ".
The 11,520,000 ms ping times also might interfere with some applications.
This technology enables many more people to be simultaneously stuck at 4Mbps down/256Kbps up.
You're assuming only one truck can use the road at a time.
We have a 30TB EMC CX-500 with Brocade 2Gb FC backbone. The bench moves blocks of a few hundred GB to a dozen servers or less. We have never come anywhere near %50 utilization on the FC.
The transfers run about 4-6hrs and I was looking for choke points to shorten the time. The data simply won't go to disk any faster on the U320 SCSI bus. We consistently measure 20MBps max to disk, which makes sense. U320 means 320Mbps/8 = 20MBps. So I get the same max numbers for local disk-to-disk that I get for SAN-to-disk, and the same results regardless of OS. If this rate could be maintained, six servers doing the transfer should just about saturate the backbone, but the overhead of file access and FS management mean the max is only maintained for a moment as a few particularly large files come across. With lots of smaller files being copied, the average rate goes down to 2MBps.
If these servers had to be optimized for SAN-to-Disk transfer rate, they would have to have multiple SCSI controllers and HBAs, paired up on seperate PCI busses, and the data would have to be optimized with fewer/larger files.
Of course, the 2.5TBps link is of interest to ISPs and regional carriers not server labs, but I thought I'd throw in what we've seen on the utilization of a 2Gbps FC link in a SAN setup.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Where's the moderation for "+5 for extreme nerdiness, minus several million because you really should get out more"? /says someone who's closing in on 4000 posts to slashdot...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Research scientists are always ahead of the "real world". This has always been, always will be. You can view their work as creating ideas, innovations and technologies. Once these ideas have been published, it is the industry's work to pick them up and transform them into something commercially usable. Yes, there is a lot of research projects that can be viewed as useless, but, you should see it as a brainstorming of new technologies. Not all will end up in something revolutionary, but it may incite new ideas and/or bring new products or ways of doing things in the "real world".
DrkBr
Optical fiber gives you a loss of approx a quarter dB per km (0.25 dB/km) - which is very close to the theoretical limit of current glass optical fibers. At 160 km, that gives you an attenuation in your optical signal of about 40 dB. All-optical amplifiers - EDFAs - (without signal regeneration, just plain amplification) can give you a good boost in power and you can cascade many before the signal becomes too distorted (because each amplifier amplifies both the noise and the signal). An other type of all-optical amplifier - DRAs - give you a lesser gain, but they do not amplify the noise (pretty cool concept!), so a combination of EDFAs and DRAs can get you an all-optical link - without regenerators - of several thousands of kms! Research scientists do work in a modular fashion. One research group works on one aspect of a problem and other groups work on other aspects. In this case, if one span of optical fiber (without amplifiers) can handle very high bit rates, it is not too difficult to extend this to ultra long haul (UHL) networks which have many spans of optical fibers with all-optical amplifiers - provided that you have amplifiers available for the band of wavelengths that you are using. I am guessing that this is a limitation to this experiment, but a lot of research is done by other groups on all-optical amplifiers working in different wavelength bands. One group cannot do it all, but they rather concentrate on one area and let other groups develop the other areas. So this is indeed a pretty cool and impressive result if we understand the experiment and can see its implication for future optical networks!
DrkBr
Well actually, trailers can be up to 53 feet long.. that increases their volume to 109m^3. That's still short, however I believe you're allowed to pull two trailers in any state (and even 3 in some).. 218m^3! Far above and beyond the paltry 138.24m^3 you need. In fact the extra room could carry a WHOLE LOT OF BEER.. for watching all those DVDs.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You notice that you call my post "revisionist bullshit" and then proceed not to disagree with me.
Your post primarily says that once the US entered the fray the end was clear, which I completely agree with. What I said was that even if the US had not entered the war, Germany still would have lost (though without US involvement, Japan would probably rule much of Asia). It's interesting that you mention supplies: The US was supplying the allied forces before it actually entered the war, but the US supplies, both before and after 1942 went primarily to the western front. AFAIK, the US never provided significant supplies to the Russians; there really was no way for us to do so.
I will concede that the US entry into the war and the Normandy invasion did help take the pressure off of the Soviets, but I think it's far from clear that Hitler every could have conquered the Russians. The USSR was too big, too populous and too powerful, even if it didn't have the level of industrialization the US had.
It's all speculation, but I think even without the US involvement, the Soviets would have fought Hitler to a standstill, consuming more of Germany's troops and resources and the British were already planning the invasion of occupied France even without US troop support (they had US logistical support even without the US entry into the war). The US ended the war much sooner than it would have otherwise, and probably dramatically changed the level of Communist influence in the outcome, but Germany was doomed either way.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
lets see, the new record is 60 DVD/s "ordinary" lines come in at 50 times slower, so still well over 1 dvd/second 60/50=x x=ludicrus speed Hey bob, uhh we need to move all of the internet to my house... and back again, by tues.
Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
Let's see... Well, Unless DVD can contain more that 40 GB of data (BluRay ?), there is a possibility of overflow in submitter's calculations.
My guess is that it's more like the quivalent of 600 DVD per second which has been transmitted.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.