Slashdot Mirror
New Ethernet Standard — Both 40 and 100 Gbps
Artemis recommends a blog entry that does a nice job of summarizing the history and current state of the Higher Speed Study Group and the IEEE's next-generation Ethernet standard. "When IEEE 802.3ba was originally proposed [there] were multiple possible speeds that were being discussed, including 40, 80, 100, and 120Gbps. While there options were eventually narrowed down to just two, 40 and 100Gbps, the HSSG had difficulties [deciding] on the one specific speed they wanted to become the new standard... [T]wo different groups formed, one which wanted faster server-to-switch connections at 40Gbps and one which wanted a more robust network backbone at 100Gbps... Unable to come up with a consensus the HSSG decided to standardize both 40Gbps and 100Gbps speeds..."
Major telcos has increased the upload speed to 800k at a cost for only $70.00 a month.
40Gbps can be 1 meter long on the backplane, 10 meters for copper cable and 100 meters for fiber-optics. The 100Gbps standard includes specifications for 10 kilometer and 40 kilometer connections over single-mode fiber.
I'm seeing the 100Gbps used for infrastructure with its larger bandwidth and longer cable length while the 40Gbps would be used for datacenters, server rooms, etc. with its faster "connect" speeds (clarification on what exactly this would mean?).
><));>
one which wanted faster server-to-switch connections at 40Gbps and one which wanted a more robust network backbone at 100Gbps
Why is the 40 Gbps one considered "faster" and the 100 Gbps one considered "more robust"?
HSSG decided to standardize both 40Gbps and 100Gbps speeds...
'HSSG'? Is that some weird acronym for 'market'?
I'm normally not one to do this, but the article linked is nearly identical to the coverage over at Ars Technica. It seems that only a few words were changed and without even a link to the original ars article.
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
The great thing about standards is ther's so many to choose from.
At the bottom of the
Mod parent up!
Will these two standards interoperate compatibly? Or will I have to pay great attention to which interfaces I am purchasing and deploying? If not, it could hardly be considered a standard in the "standard" sense. Is this just a committee that couldn't come to agreement so they just "declared" a non-standard as a standard?
Exactly how far will ethernet efficiently scale? As I understand it there were problems with 1Gbp/s as first planned leading to jumbo frames, and ethernet isn't (wasn't) that efficient a protocol.
Are there any other serious contenders which could/should be examined as a replacement for ethernet?
In other news... A major open source project could not decide between GPLv2 and GPLv3 today, so they dual licensed it!
And then the world exploded.
the network will soon be faster than the computer. Any chance we can syphon off of this speed to do some computing? Make the network become the computer?
What?
If you want all the gory details rather than a copy of a summary of a summary, here is a link to all the presentations at the meeting.
. html
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/july07/index
Read through the minutes (warning PDF) to get a summary.
Motion #4: Move that the HSSG adopt the following objectives in replacement of
existing HSSG objectives:
o Support full-duplex operation only
o Preserve the 802.3 / Ethernet frame format utilizing the 802.3 MAC
o Preserve minimum and maximum FrameSize of current 802.3 standard
o Support a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface
o Provide appropriate support for OTN
o Support a MAC data rate of 40 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 40 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
- at least 1m over a backplane
o Support a MAC data rate of 100 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 100 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 40km on SMF
- at least 10km on SMF
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
Considering that this stuff was doing 10 GB in 2005, to see 100 in 2007 is a pretty nice upgrade...my question is, given that the speeds are increasing, will we see any of this as consumers in the US? Not a "providers suck" (which we already know), but more of a "will this potentially make connections cheaper"?
Who will be the lucky slashdotter?
I'm just sayin'....
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
welcome our New Ethernet Standard overlords
Actually 20,000,000 posts. Of course in honor of the fencepost effect I wonder if t he first post was #0?
Why have one standard when you can have two instead! This strategy has worked so well in the past...
I for one am glad that for once they're thinking about MACs while designing standards, and not only PCs.
Hardy-har-har
Moooo!!!
lol.
FailGET !!!
If you are the type to do the numbers and get a MB with sufficent bus speed. Buyer beware. The lack of speed may not be obvious without an order of magnitude jump.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I am not trying to rationalize this but as computing power increases doesn't the capability to handle a larger data stream become realistic or no? I'm looking it this from a fairly simple perspective.
Also isn't someone already having to handle such streams? Don't tier 1 networks have to be able to handle far more than such things already? What about the likes of Google or MSFT perhaps? (not that it means that it's viable for the rest of the world). In another thread with similar questions(but not the ones I pose here) I mentioned a similar idea and people expressed that it is not difficult to handle large amounts of traffic, the idea seems circular once again.
Can you give me a general idea of how much bandwith a computer could handle and/or what type of computer? Being someone who has never worked in such security I have no quantifiable idea of how much processing is needed. Would this be like a dual 8core pc with 16gigs of ram can handle 1/2 a GB of continual data? Would this be essentially a server with a built in switch?
In addition, if there was sufficiently high amounts of bandwith for everyone, would you have to monitor anything other than variants of DDOS or other distributed attacks that use multiple pcs? If everyone on the planet had a 1 or 2GB/S down and upstream connection (think perhaps 10,20,30 years down the road I have no idea how long really), would it matter what else slows down the internet connection on their PC's?
This should take care of the "Enormous amounts of material" the great Ted Stevens warned us about.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
All the posts are odd numbered, so the actual post count is lower.
... making a Beowulf cluster with these?
(I'm sorry... I just had to!)
Saw it in Nature magazine- the short answer is yes we can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
So they couldn't come to a resolution on who to make happy, so they decided to make both people happy. If only Microsoft offered 2 versions, 1 for those hardcore performance nazi's(myself included) that has no extras, just the OS and that's all, or a slow performance sapping, DRM loaded, 'feature' full version! Microsoft should take notes from these guys. So 40 Gbps or 100 Gpbs? I'll settle for just the 40Gbps internet connection for now.
When 10Mb Ethernet came out there was widespread debate about its performance, because computers weren't fast enough to saturate it. It was probably the same for 100Mb, and I know the early 1Gb NICs could only handle ~700Mb.
It didn't happen in this thread, apparently.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Would you mind coming to my office to explain a 'database' to the manager?
Then you can move onto normalization.
Thanks in advance.
Get your Unix fortune now!
You're point so perceptive! That is exactly why 10/100 MPS ethernet cards were such a failure!
Are there any other serious contenders which could/should be examined as a replacement for ethernet?
Perhaps we should look toward a high speed LocalTalk or PhoneNet implementation?
Hopefully we might soon be able to let copper cabling die.
/ 25/2046208
Cheap high speed optical chips: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07
Flexible, robust optical cables: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41171
Not true, I saw post 15000000 happen. Or was it 10 million...
curl 'http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25[595-611][1 -9]&cid=20000000' -o 'sd#1_#2.html
each one contains :
We can't find a comment with that ID (20000000)
i'm too lazy to keep looking
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
You are correct Broadband=2Mb/s+, all other contrary comments are silly marketeer-spin for politicians and corporatist.
Also, the USA ranks 20+ in telecommunications (we ain't #1), because of corporatist marketeer-spin to silly politicians.
AAMOMFF, the USA ranks #1 in international debt only. We're #1, We're #1, We're #1 in debtor nations. THANK GOD and POLITICIANS!
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Defined by who?
should be:
Defined by whom?
Yeah, I know.... Stupid pet peeve....
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
Every GET is a modGET. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
...
In Soviet Russia, meme fails YOU!
which is totally what she said
Why do will we need ISPs? For some things, anyway?
We can string backbones using standard ethernet, at these speeds. We can use radio to bridge gaps. As I understand it, using copper across open outdoor spaces is electrically mad, so optical cabling is necessary, but the cost is dropping. We can run our own naming system. As for file sharing piggies, they can be screened out. We need a simple communication system that isn't under the boot.
Let's face it, the corporations and the moral police have taken over the old internet. Time for the ad hoc, mobile, difficult to pin down, constantly adapting citizen's net.
And no, I don't care about the "pedophiles" or the old men dating younger girls. As for the pedos, all this "knowledge" about their presence is garbage. If you know where to find underage stuff, YOU are a pedo; if you haven't looked for it, you couldn't possibly speak to the subject. Everyone is making the problem up, citing each other as sources. Witchcraft, satanism, terrorists and commies, oh my. We always need a reason to break down the doors, don't we? Otherwise why would we need all these expensive, newly militarized police we've acquired? We've the safest, wealthiest society that's ever existed, so we wouldn't need all that surveillance and LED blinders and tasers and strip searches and drug tests and armed guards in schools if we didn't constantly find new threats, even if they don't, strictly speaking, actually exist, as compared to, say hurricanes making landfall.
A dark night is coming, and we are exporting the darkness to others around the world at gun- and market-point. A network cloud that is relatively immune to corporate and government shutdown and surveillance is essential to keep mankind free. No exaggeration.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
PC's with 1Gbps on the backplane xferring to each other through a Gigibit switch I get a peak speed of about 300mbps (mega-bits). This is using only about 33% of the speed of the network & my assumption is that it's faster than the drives can write. So my question is what computers can transfer data at 40Gbps let alone 100?