Slashdot Mirror


Where's Our Terabit Ethernet?

carusoj writes "Five years ago, we were talking about using Terabit Ethernet in 2008. Those plans have been pushed back a bit, but Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe this week is starting to throw around a new date for Terabit Ethernet: 2015. He's also suggesting that this be done in a non-standard way, at least at first, saying it's an opportunity to "break loose from the stranglehold of standards and move into some fun new technologies.""

12 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Stranglehold? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to see the internet held together by his fun new technologies. See how well machines communicate without basic protocols.

    1. Re:Stranglehold? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see it as an opportunity for a new standard to evolve in a more natural fashion. Consider HD-DVD v. Blu-Ray--you have two competing formats come out, neither of which is compatible with the other's standard, but after a while it becomes apparent which one is going to be used.

      Besides, it's not like this is going to affect TCP or IP or whatnot--this is way down at the bottom of the OSI model at level 1.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:Stranglehold? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because corporate competitions in which two big companies do their best to ensure that their format wins the battle, with the individuals being frightened that their purchases will become obsolete is soo much fun.

      Standards should be decided on BEFORE the material comes out. In this case it's not such a big deal, as the only people who are going to want terabit ethernet are huge enough geeks (or companies) to support whatever standard they choose but for the most part a lack of standards hurts everyone (just look at IE/Office, those are 'competing' standards...would you call them a good thing?)

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:Stranglehold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but waiting for competing standards to shake out can be a huge waste of time and money.

      Doesn't anyone remember the bad old days before TCP/IP over Ethernet became standard?

      How many organizations are still laboring to expunge the last remaining vestiges of Token Ring, IPX, Netware, etc.?

    4. Re:Stranglehold? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you don't understand where he is coming from.

      You would need to use the existing protocols on some level, but the protaocols to hit terabyte might need to be different. So he is saying Think about how to get reach the goal firsts, then delve into the protocol arena. If it is superior then eventually we would discard the older protocols and only use the new one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Re:Who needs it? by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    640k is roughly:

    10 Commodore 64s
    20 BBC Micros
    640 ZX-81s
    6 times a SDSS floppy disc

    Who needs that kind of memory?

    We might not need terabit ethernet *now*, but in 25 years time, it may be the basic expectation of your LAN's speed.

  3. I'd sooner have... by Channard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. a technology that lets homes receive fast internet no matter where they are. My area's not cabled up, and thanks to me being too far from the exchange.. I just live in a normal street .. I can't reliably get more than 512KB a second. Fix that, and you'd be laughing. Powerline networking, maybe?

  4. Re:Long Time by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    7 years is a long time.

    Seven years is the blink of an eye, kid.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  5. Re:Who needs it? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe. One of the things that I've noticed is that as the bandwidth increases it becomes harder and harder to fill it up. Back in the Commodore 64 days it was not hard at all to run your machine out of memory by just typing a paper that was too long, and that's without graphics/charts/etc... These days there is no way a person would be able to type enough text to even make a noticeable dent in the main memory of any commodity machine. When everybody used 56k modems and serial lines it was trivially easy to fill up the link. However, when they moved to 10Mb Ethernet it got harder, but not impossible. Suddenly compressed music files were not a problem, although compressed video (DivX) still was. Then we went to 100Mb Ethernet and compressed video is no longer much of a bottleneck. Even now most modern machines come with Gigabit Ethernet ports that your average person can't fill with anything. Without new and bandwith intensive applications people won't be inclined to improve their bandwidth.

    That's not to say someone won't come up with some application that requires a ton of bandwidth (distributed neural nets?), but none of our current applications would even really scale up to requiring 10GbE. The only realistic thing that comes to mind is some sort of Super HD video format, but anything like that is at least a decade away.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  6. Re:For those of you playing at home, a TB is by Macrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1Gbs is a bit slow when backup up a 1TB hard drive to the network server at home. ;-)

  7. Put off in favor of wireless. by scaryjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I humbly submit that the R&D money that could have increased the upper boundary of Ethernet speeds was spent to bring wireless to the masses. Five years ago, if you'd told me WiFi would now be a year away from nominal speeds of 250Mb/s I might have thought you were talking about prototypes. The dorms where I was a tech had just finished upgrading from 10Mb/s to 100Mb/s Ethernet. The few laptops that were sold with external wireless cards had nominal speeds of 10Mb/s. But now we have 802.11g and next year we should have 802.11n on the store shelves.

    I think we've gained much more by pushing out the median speed of wireless than we could have gained from pushing out the marginal speed of twisted pair.

    --
    One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
  8. Re:Who needs it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is nothing you can do with a big-ass pipe except move bits.

    Free clue: 10Gb ethernet is currently used mostly in clusters and as backbones for large network installations to move lots of data around very fast. It's a long way off being a LAN technology. In seven years time, Terabit ethernet will be used mostly in clusters and as backbones for large network installations and 10Gb ethernet will be a LAN technology.