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.
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
Equivalent to 160,000 metres and 160,000,000 millimetres!
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.
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
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.
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