Slashdot Mirror
New Data Transmission Record — 14 Tbps
deejne writes to alert us to a new bandwidth record: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone has announced data transmission at a rate of 14 terabits per second over a single optical fiber. The paper claims the previous record was "about 10 Tbps." In the new experiment, NTT sent data over 160 kilometers (nearly 100 miles) of optical fiber, in 140 channels of 111 Gbps each.
And still nothing worth watching.
vista.windowsupdate.com?
I thought it meant 14 ThePirateBays per second...
liqbase
That's still nothing compared to a semi loaded with DVDs traveling at 70mph.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
and yet I'm still downloading at a measly 300 kbs.
I'd like to know what the cost of the required equipment is. We know that hardware has a premium for the newest and fastest and it would be interesting to see what the premium is in this case. Maybe it would be cheaper to run 14 1 Tbps links instead of a single 14 Tbps link. Sure, if I already have the fiber in place, then using it for higher speed would be the way to go. However, if I am in a position where I am about to lay fiber anyway, I don't really care about those costs since I will be paying them anyway.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
While impressive, the feat was accomplished over a single optical fiber using proprietary amplifiers not in production. It certainly is innovative, but it is not an indication of speeds you will see in consumer level services. I see these high-bandwidth paradigms being very useful in the medical industry in the near future - especially for things like transferring high quality MRI images from hospital to hospital with very little delay, or in transferring patient ICU data to a centralized monitoring center - which is currently being done, but super-high bandwidth models open up avenues of information that are not currently available - anything from real-time HI-DEF video from the room, to real-time control of in-room instrumentation.
i wonder what kinda of hardware you need to send a burst of 14 TBps? is it comming from that much ram? harddrives? U must have some good hardware to be able to queue up that much data and burst transfer like that.
-EL
Good thing I didn't buy that eSATA card I was looking at today. 3Gb/second? What a piece of crap!
This is the internet, not the interstate.
God spoke to me.
Quote:
Well, I remember back on my 14.4 modem... those text pages loaded like the wind. I was on top of the world... Then those damned pictures started cropping up on websites. Pictures on the internet? Ha! Then came the 56.6k modem which showed those pictures who were boss. No problems. Oh wait, online gaming? File sharing ? Cable and DSL save the day. More than adequate
Reply:
I beg to differ. I have [cough] friends that download movi^H^H^H^H^H content from the internet, and some dvd rips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H database files can be larger than 4GB! Even at a good (cheap) DSL line of 1KBPS it still takes quite alot longer to download content than it would take to go to blockbuster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the office and pick up physical media with the data on it.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
Each advancement in technology allows the main internet backbone companies to purchase one very expensive fast pipe and share it between all the customers (ISPs) of a country or state.
These things need to be thousands of times faster than your home connection because each one will carry thousands of times more data.
Its no good one single person having all that bandwidth if there is nobody else to talk to at that speed.
liqbase
When I multiply that out, I get 1.990656e+9
That's about 2 Gbps
So, you could fit about 7000 of these uncompressed video streams over the 14 Tb/s link, unless I'm screwing up the calculation someplace.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The distance traversed is 100 miles, which would take 1.4 hours, at 70MPH.
There are 3600 seconds in an hour.
This means that per hour a line can move 1.58 million DVD's
for a 70 MPH trip this adjusts to 2.25 Million DVD's
or 225,000 (100 disk spindles) Each Spindle Weighs 4Lbs
leaving 900,000 lbs or 450 tons..
That would be a semi with 200 cars loaded on it....
Now How big of a truck are you drivin....?
Storm
I get a lower ping in Quake? Seriously though, I think half the time it's the servers on the internet that are slow rather than broadband connections. I'm sure this has some real world use, other than publicity, (stock trading) but I can't imagine many companies needed it - except the obvious googles of the world. Backbones are obviously going to be interested but do they shift that volume of data at peak levels?
How many DVD movies per second was this?
Also, they failed to provide a conversion from terabyte to Libraries of Congress.
Try saying "CSRZ-DQPSK" three times fast! I guess this acronym does serve the purpose of being easier to say than "carrier suppressed return-to-zero differential quadrature phase shift keying," but couldn't they have chosen a snazzy acronym that was hip to say and then worked out what it meant, like NASA?
1) Yes, distance is cruically important in these measurements. There's no points in having gazillions of petabyte data transfer if it can only done from one corner of the lab to the other. Which is why all credible speed-of-information-transfer articles include a number with units of [ (bits / second) * distance].
2) The record is still held by the transmissions from Voyager II's encounter with Neptune.
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
where did they get all those Terabytes to send?
I'm pretty sure somewhere like that gets them directly from the manufacturer.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story that had the telephone networks becoming self aware when the network became sufficently complex. It's possible I tell you, the telephone networks just don't have the bandwi....... /eof
......
.....
NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG.
I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
One of the russian computer trading companies easily topped that. The box with 20 400GB HDDs fell from the shelf 2m high. Total data transmission rate was
20*4*10^11*8/sqrt(2*2/9.8)~=10^14 bps or 100 Tbps
As you see if you have enough money to burn you may easily scale that number.
my sstream of consciousness
1KBPS? How cheap _IS_ your DSL line?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
So while the new line isnt quite nothing compared to a truck, a truck can move more data 100 miles faster than the new link.
Storm
African or European hard drives?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
On the whole, fiber is cheep. Ultra-high-speed multiplexors and demultiplexors are not. A typical bundle of fibers might easily have 128 or 1024 fibers running through it, and the extra quality needed to go from a few terabits to a few tens of terabits won't be significant compared to the cost of running really long fiber in that speed range in the first place.
The ideal, then, is to run a full bundle from each State to every other State. (ie: 49 lines should be sent from each of the 50 States.) At each end, you plug on an agreed-upon switch at an agreed-upon speed. This would start at 2 terabits/second. Each switch is also connected to a large pool of extremely fast routers. Those routers would then have lines to the routers from each of the other 48 multi-terabit State-to-State lines. All remaining connections from the 49 pools of routers would go to the Internet backbone for that State, any metropoliton networks and any State-financed rural networks.
As the switches increase in performance, you only have to replace the switches, not the fiber, since it's stipulated at the beginning that you'd go for the highest-grade fiber available. As soon as 14 terabit switches existed, you'd have an effective bandwidth of 686 terabits. (Since you can do multi-path routing, you can distribute that 686 terabits as you like.)
Wouldn't this be expensive? Sure. However, we've just burned half a trillion dollars for no obvious benefit. Burning another half trillion on providing nuke-resistant, DDoS-proof, meltdown-resistant data infrastructure that would at least serve a provable, verifiable purpose and would eventually reimburse some/all of the costs would seem reasonable enough.
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)
Current routers, like the Cisco CRS-1, use OC-768c/STM-256, which is about 40 Gbit/sec. Right now, there are a couple of camps in the IEEE, ones that want 40 Gbit Ethernet, others that want the factor of 10 increase that Ethernet has normally been associated with. Since there is no 100 Gbit SONET (that I'm aware of at least), these public demonstrations, this one by NTT and another by Lucent, prove that 100 Gbit Ethernet is possible, even for long haul. Some providers like at&t, Yahoo and Google, really need 100 Gbit Ethernet because they produce that much data, or provide 10 Gbit service to customers, and they need to aggregate it somehow.
20 GOTO 10
I once threw a box of 120 Gig tapes into a dumpster. I think there were about 200 tapes in the box.
I admit the distance wasn't far, but the burst rate was 24 TBytes/sec.
It's a shame to see Linux still hasn't managed to implement a functioning "Delete" key.
Someday our kids will look back at us and wonder how the hell we surfed porn so slow.
Ignore this signature. By order.
a truck can move more data 100 miles faster than the new link
Until you consider loading/unloading time and writing/reading the DVDs, which would add days of latency. I'm assuming that this fiber line has vritually no latency.
...you can watch it much faster!!!
The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2004/prod_070104.ht ml
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.