Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IEEE Seeks Data On Ethernet Bandwidth Needs

Posted by Soulskill on from the more-better-faster dept.

itwbennett writes "The IEEE has formed a group to assess demand for a faster form of Ethernet, taking the first step toward what could become a Terabit Ethernet standard. 'We all contacted people privately' around 2005 to gauge the need for a faster specification, said John D'Ambrosia, chairman of the new ad hoc group. 'We only got, like, seven data points.' Disagreement about speeds complicated the process of developing the current standard, called 802.3ab. Though carriers and aggregation switch vendors agreed the IEEE should pursue a 100Gbps speed, server vendors said they wouldn't need adapters that fast until years later. They wanted a 40Gbps standard, and it emerged later that there was also some demand for 40Gbps among switch makers, D'Ambrosia said. 'I don't want to get blindsided by not understanding bandwidth trends again.'"

80 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Build it by linatux · · Score: 2

    & they will come

    1. Re:Build it by crusty_architect · · Score: 2

      Yes thats what we said about 10Mb/s Ethernet in the 1990's...

    2. Re:Build it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Did they? Because I remember finding 10Mb/s networks too slow in the mid '90s. Switched 10Mb/s networks made that a bit better, but often there was still a bottleneck. On the other hand, I've only found 100Mb/s too slow on a few occasions - maybe once per year. I've used GigE, but I've never come close to saturating it.

      Like the grandparent said, it's a question of diminishing returns. 1Mb/s is fast enough for pretty much any text-based data. 10Mb/s is fine for still images, unless they're really huge raw photos (and even then, progressive loading probably means that you won't notice the bottleneck). 100Mb/s is fine for video - even HD. There will eventually be things for which 1000Mb/s is too slow, but they're going to be relatively uncommon. 100Mb/s will remain fast enough for all of the things that it's fast enough for now.

      And once you get to 'fast enough', other things become more important. I turned off the switch in my last house once I realised that I hadn't used the wired network for several months, and my new house is entirely wireless. 54Mb/s and freedom from wires is more useful to me than 100Mb/s.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Build it by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't downloaded enough porn lately... but yes, past a certain point, the servers become the bottleneck, not the network. If only we could get people to use IP multicast for live streaming...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Build it by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Much of the talk is about operator and hub level, not end-user. As a result, terabit ethernet makes sense with numbers you present - provided specific hub serves enough clients.

      Essentially it's a case of making internal ISP networks simpler to build.

    5. Re:Build it by smash · · Score: 3, Informative

      depends what you're using it for, doesn't it?

      gig-e is still slow. sure it might be fine for a single desktop port, but...

      hook it up to a SAN, and before you know it you're running into the limits of a few gig-e ports bound into an etherchannel.

      storage requirements are going to continue to grow. HD video / audio is going to continue to become more widespread. if you're dealing with limited numbers of cables to carry data for large (and increasing) numbers of users, there's no escaping the need for more bandwidth.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:Build it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      At least until it becomes very much cheaper, anything faster than gigabit is mostly about reducing the cable mess in high density situations.

      For instance, if you are doing server virtualization, cheap multicore CPUs and cheap RAM means that it isn't at all implausible or uncommon to have numerous VMs all living in a single 2U, with the bandwidth demands of whatever it is that they are doing, plus the bandwidth demands brought about by the fact that there isn't any room for disks in there, so all their storage I/O is happening over iSCSI. You end up with every expansion slot filled with 4 port gigE cards and a real rat's nest.

    7. Re:Build it by Zone-MR · · Score: 2

      54Mb/s and freedom from wires is more useful to me than 100Mb/s.

      Except you'll not be seeing anywhere close to 54Mb/s actual throughput. You'll see around 20Mb/s, barely double the 10Mb/s Ethernet network that you deemed too slow in the mid-90's. Proves your point though that you're unlikely to need more in a home setup. Server data centres are a different story...

    8. Re:Build it by El_Isma · · Score: 1

      Wifi-g actually doesn't provide 54Mb/s of effective BW, more like around 27Mb/s. Just FYI.

    9. Re:Build it by nomaddamon · · Score: 1

      It might take a while to get 1Gbs+ Internet to most homes, but for LAN i feel GbE as a bottleneck today.
      When I use DLNA to stream HD content to 3 TV's (one in kitchen, one in living room and 1 or 2 in kids rooms) and use N spec wifi at the same time, the DLNA lags sometimes. By calculations there should be some bandwith left over but not much. The lagging is probably caused by unexpected overheads and GbE switches preforming at "GbE in theory" speeds, but with the world moving towards a phase where every single gadget/device is connected to LAN/Internet this will become a large problem shortly.

    10. Re:Build it by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Except that modern wireless access points and NICs do 54 Mbps on multiple channels.
      Unfortunately, 802.11n is a marketing term, and can mean either 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz or both. Because consumers are cheapskates with little or no technical understanding and WAY too much faith in marketing, the trend is towards not offering 5 GHz band anymore, to save costs.

      Hint: If equipment says a/b/g/n, it will support both, and you'll likely get 150 Mbps speeds (120 in reality). If lucky, you may even get 300 (230 in reality). If the equipment says b/g/n, on the other hand, don't expect much - 54 Mbps in most cases, and 150 if there's absolutely nothing else sharing the spectrum.

    11. Re:Build it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Any more? I've only ever found one n-point that did 5GHz, and I had to shop around to get it. 5GHz is more expensive than 2.5GHz, and if consumers don't know what a gigahertz is then why should manuafacturers bother to support it?

    12. Re:Build it by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I've only found 100Mb/s too slow on a few occasions - maybe once per year. I've used GigE, but I've never come close to saturating it.

      This isn't about or for home users, or even small office users. It's about network operators.

      In my small operation (under 100 servers, 3 1 gb internet connections) I have several places where I completely saturate 1 GB and have, for cost reasons, trunked it (10 GbE is very expensive still when you look at having to replace/upgrade core switching to support it). Switch cross connects and SANs are the biggest offenders. Trunking sucks (anything that requires more complexity and configuration is always worse than the simpler solution in my opinion), and getting higher speed ethernet connections into the top of the market will reduce the cost of 10 GbE as well as giving us (datacenter guys) somewhere else to scale when we need it.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    13. Re:Build it by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      At least until it becomes very much cheaper, anything faster than gigabit is mostly about reducing the cable mess in high density situations. For instance, if you are doing server virtualization, cheap multicore CPUs and cheap RAM means that it isn't at all implausible or uncommon to have numerous VMs all living in a single 2U, with the bandwidth demands of whatever it is that they are doing, plus the bandwidth demands brought about by the fact that there isn't any room for disks in there, so all their storage I/O is happening over iSCSI. You end up with every expansion slot filled with 4 port gigE cards and a real rat's nest.

      Try an ESXi cluster of a blade chassis of 16 servers, each running 10 or more VMs. The switch cross connects back to the core start to become a problem even at 10 GbE.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    14. Re:Build it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This isn't about or for home users, or even small office users. It's about network operators.

      Which is exactly the point. That's what diminishing returns means here. 10Mb/s is too slow for 90% of users. 100Mb/s is too slow for 10% of users. 1Gb/s is too slow for 1% of users. 10Gb/s is too slow for 0.001% of users. Each speed bump increases the number of people for whom it's fast enough. If you're designing a new 100Gb/s interconnect, it's going to be for such a small group of people (compared to the total set of computer users) that defining something backwards compatible with 100Mb/s Ethernet may not be worthwhile.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Build it by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      it's going to be for such a small group of people (compared to the total set of computer users) that defining something backwards compatible with 100Mb/s Ethernet may not be worthwhile.

      I'm not sure what you think I was responding to or talking about. You're bringing up a point that I completely agree with, but also one that I wasn't discussing in my post.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    16. Re:Build it by skids · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the ATM crowd should be allowed to say "I told you so" since "trunking" under ATM is fantastically simple since there are no reordering problems and as such no need for hashing and balancing.

      ATM crowd, please step to the stage for due credit... ...crickets...

      Oh right, everyone went for the technology they understood instead of the better one. Par for the course.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    17. Re:Build it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The point is the same one that I made in my original post, which you responded to...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Build it by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      ATM crowd, please step to the stage for due credit... ...crickets...

      Oh right, everyone went for the technology they understood instead of the better one. Par for the course.

      There is no possible rebuttal to this.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    19. Re:Build it by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It might take a while to get 1Gbs+ Internet to most homes, but for LAN i feel GbE as a bottleneck today.
      When I use DLNA to stream HD content to 3 TV's (one in kitchen, one in living room and 1 or 2 in kids rooms) and use N spec wifi at the same time, the DLNA lags sometimes. By calculations there should be some bandwith left over but not much. The lagging is probably caused by unexpected overheads and GbE switches preforming at "GbE in theory" speeds, but with the world moving towards a phase where every single gadget/device is connected to LAN/Internet this will become a large problem shortly.

      Or it might just be your server.

      Uncompressed OTA HD is 20Mbps tops (per ATSC spec). 3 HD streams would consume a good chunk of Fast Ethernet, but there's still enough leftover. And if you go Blu-Ray, it also tops out around 15-20Mbps or so. If it's cable HD, you're lucky to get 6Mbps per channel.

      The N wifi is probably the biggest consumer of bandwidth, but my general experience is it offers maybe just a bit faster performance than Fast Ethernet.

      Now, if your DLNA server is serving up 3 HDTV streams and you're busy copying files to it over WiFi, it's probably your server and I/O throughput (those streams are causing the heads to skitter across the platters, and the fastest spinning rust can do is around 100 seeks/second).

      Also, if your router is the one doing DLNA/file serving/packet routing (WiFi-wired), there's 95% of your problem right there.

    20. Re:Build it by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... and his point is that you're looking at the bottom.

      You need to look further up, where 1000s of those users are trying to cram data through your links. It adds up.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    21. Re:Build it by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      150 is not 120 in reality. not even theoretically.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    22. Re:Build it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Dammit. I need terabit ethernet between my computer and my server at my home. I demand near-instant access to my information at all times.

      GigE is such a drag.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. I don't think you guys were listening by crusty_architect · · Score: 1

    We all wanted 100G. 40G is a waste of time.

    1. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      AIUI the real issue is that 40 and 100 gigabit ethernet is just a low level (and as I understand it more efficient than packet level link aggregation techniques) system for aggregating 10 gigabit links. If you want 40 gigabit you need 4 fiber pairs (or 4 wavelengths in a WDM system), if you want 100 gigabit you need 10 fiber pairs (or 10 wavelengths in a WDM system).

      40G/100G is the first time in the history of ethernet that the top speed hasn't been able to be run through a single fiber transceiver. Do you really want to be using up 10 fiber pairs when 4 would be sufficient?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      Do you really want to be using up 10 fiber pairs when 4 would be sufficient?

      I would when 4 is no longer sufficient.

      The cost of the cable is minor compared to the cost of laying it, so I can't help thinking 100Gb makes more sense overall.

    3. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by cbope · · Score: 1

      "Laying" in this context typically means buried cable, in other words medium-to-long or longer-distance runs. Even cable that costs $10's per foot, costs much more than that per foot when you factor in the heavy equipment needed to dig the trench and the manpower to physically lay the cable.

    4. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Running the cable is the part that requires the effort, unfortunately. There are things that help(ie. if underground, lay a larger diameter conduit than you think you'll need; because you will end up needing it. Leave a fish line so that you can pull the next bundle through, etc.); but for anything longer than an in-room patch, the cost of getting more cable run can go up quickly. In building, you need to run the stuff so as not to damage any fire barriers(and ideally avoid having to tear up any walls...) Underground, there are the joys of trenching or pulling recalcitrant cables through existing pipes. If running on utility poles, the proximity to high voltage means you'll probably need linesmen, even though fiber is electrically harmless.

      When you can, you 'plan for expandability' by pulling as many strands of fiber in a single bundle as they'll let you get away with. The cost of each strand is comparatively small. The cost of pulling a bundle, whether it be two strands or 128 strands, is comparatively huge. You then just leave the ones you don't immediately need dark until you do need them.

      For very nasty runs(undersea cables, backbones of large landmasses, etc.) I'm told that there is some emphasis on designing new transmitter/receiver systems that can squeeze more bandwidth out of the strands you already have(when the alternative is laying another fiber bundle across the Pacific Ocean almost arbitrarily expensive endpoint hardware starts to look like a solid plan...) Such matters are well beyond my personal experience, though.

    5. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm told that there is some emphasis on designing new transmitter/receiver systems that can squeeze more bandwidth out of the strands you already have

      Yeah this was in the news today. It talks about 100Gbps per wavelength and 16Tbps in total.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    6. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by machine321 · · Score: 1

      Typical Slashdotters, they know nothing when it comes to getting laid.

    7. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by Eivind · · Score: 1

      True enough, but there's a lot of cable already installed, and the cost of requiring new cable as opposed to being able to use the currently installed one is VERY high indeed, and the replacement-cost goes up even more if the new cable is thicker than the one it is replacing, since that can lead to needing new buried pipes since the new cables won't fit trough the old pipes.

      And I don't see a compelling reason. A single current-day single-mode optical fiber is capable of transmitting 15 Tbit/s over 100 miles (more over shorter distances) if using state-of-the-art tranceivers, and experimental new fibers are up to 70Tbit/s over 250km.

      Okay, those tranceivers are too expensive for home-use at the moment, but I don't need more than 1Gbps at home at the moment either. If I do in a decade or two, who says 10Tbit/s over a single optical fiber won't be cheap then ? (given that it's practical even TODAY) 20 years is a long time in network-technology. (what did a 100Mbps-link over a single km cost 20 years ago ?)

    8. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Lay 10 fibers in preparation for 100gb, then team two 40gb using 8 of those 10. As 22nm yields go up and the tech leaks to into networking, prices will drop dramatically. Heck, Intel claims cheap consumer-grade 10gb NICs will be made with 22nm and we should see integrated 10gb cropping up in 2012.

      In ~3 years, we should see 10gb NICs where 1gb use to be.

    9. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "There are things that help"

      Ferrets.

    10. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by cdpage · · Score: 1

      Agreed,

      Rather then 10 make it 12 or 16 even, 10 makes it future proof, 12-16 gives businesses a opportunity for other channels. The cost will go down as they implement anyway.

    11. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      If you are laying new fiber from scratch I would agree laying plenty of spare is a good idea given that the ammount we can cram down one fiber seems to be platauing somewhat (it hasn't completely stopped increasing but I'm pretty sure that 40/100 gigabit is the first time a new speed of ethernet has been unable to run down a single fiber at release)

      OTOH a lot of places will be using fiber layed years ago. Back in the days when gigabit (which can easilly run on one fiber pair) was the new hotness even four pairs probablly seemed like plenty of spare. How many cabinets actually have 10 fiber pairs running to them?

      Also even if you do have the fiber do you really want to pay for twice as many optical transcievers as you need.

      100Gb makes more sense overall.

      100Gb makes sense if you belive that your requirements for a link will pass 40 gigabit per second BEFORE a technology comes out at a reasonable (relatively) cost that can do more than 10 gigabits/second/fiber.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Cable pulls might work well in a building through conduits, but it gets kind of difficult to pull a cable several miles...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      I just did a round of purchases and all of our new servers included integrated 10gb. These were all supermicro based w/ integrated intel 10gb. You can pickup XFP transceivers for around 250 ea. and I think the chassis cost around 2500 bare bones. Switches were pricey as hell though.

    14. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      I don't think 22nm tech is going to decrease the cost of fabry-perot lasers or avalanche photo diodes used to make the high end fiber-optics.
      These things have been in use for a long time in telecom and they are still pretty expensive.
      If you're using multi-mode fiber in a small LAN then you can use cheaper components, but multimode fiber won't be as future proof if they ever move up to the terabit speeds mentioned by tfa.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    15. Re:I don't think you guys were listening by Bengie · · Score: 1

      No, but it will make signal processing for copper based 10gb cheap enough to put 10gb NICs into $80 motherboards just like how 1gb became a commodity.

  3. Bandwidth trends? by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

    Ahh-hahahahahaha.... Moore's law guys. And before people flame me for misinterpreting the law, common usage is 'double the speed every 18 months'. It might be a misinterpretation, but its the most common usage in the world today.

    When was the last time someone significantly increased hardwired bandwidth?

    I gotta stop drinking red wine, and then posting on /.

    1. Re:Bandwidth trends? by somersault · · Score: 1

      It might be a misinterpretation, but its the most common usage in the world today.

      Yeah, because being commonly believed makes something true *facepalm*

      When was the last time someone significantly increased hardwired bandwidth?

      I guess Firewire, USB, HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, etc. If you're talking switches then I think there are 10Gbps ones available but they aren't necessary for most home users and businesses yet - anything much above 10Gbps and you're going faster than most storage devices can currently handle anwyay, and for most people right now, 1Gbps should be acceptable for backups and file transfers.

      I don't give a crap about increasing local ethernet speeds right now - the majority of people would get far more benefit from better internet connections. Most people can't even get 100Mbps internet, let alone 100Gbps.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Bandwidth trends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      anything much above 10Gbps and you're going faster than most storage devices can currently handle anwyay,

      Not true for long. Infiniband EDR 12x is 300Gbit/sec. It's only a matter of time before that speed hits the desktop. The fastest single internal device you can buy currently goes 6Gbit/sec. You'd need a cluster linked via Infiniband to reach 300Gbit, probably around 9 nodes with 6 cards per node. It's definitely attainable.

    3. Re:Bandwidth trends? by somersault · · Score: 1

      That fusion IO thing is actually 6GByte/s, which is 48Gbit/s (unless they made a mistake with capitals on that page), but it's not exactly small business/consumer grade stuff! If you set up a RAID array then you're obviously going to be able to handle higher bandwidths, but such a setup is really superfluous and overcomplicated for the majority of PC users.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Bandwidth trends? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      It isn't Moore's law, but speed of networking does follow an exponential trend, as does capacity of hard disks. Maybe if you make a logarithmic graph of when 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, 10 Gbps, and 100 Gbps Ethernet appeared you could estimate when 1 Tbps Ethernet should appear.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:Bandwidth trends? by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about SMB / consumer level stuff take a good look at solid state.

      The last generation of the OCZ vertex can saturate a couple gigabit links especially since it is saturating the 3Gb SATA link that is connecting it to the PC, it would take a mere 3-4 of these to saturate a 10Gb link. Mind u this is consumer level and last generation at that. Two of the newer generations (running on SATA 3 vs SATA 2) would easily saturate a 10Gb ethernet link

      All of this assumes the machine with these beasts can handle that much I/O. The scariest part to me about these drives is all are limited by the type of connection they have not the drive itself.

  4. Re:iPad by Chas · · Score: 1

    Basically anyone using a real computer with a real operating system. Toys and their vendors need not apply.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  5. Re:Forget "today" by smash · · Score: 1

    By unplugging the Ethernet cable, I'd get 450% of that speed using the 802.11n MIMO tri-antennas in my MacBook Pro.

    no you won't.

    not unless you have an airport in your lap as well. And it will be the 450 megabit shared between every device, rather than switched 100 meg per port.

    Besides, If you were in any way cluey, you would have used cat5e, and be pushing gigabit.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  6. 640 k... by spectrokid · · Score: 2

    Sure this will be used in datacenters and in between them. But for the humble desktop, haven't we passed the "good enough" mark at properly switched, full duplex 100 Mbit? anybody here needs more than 100M on his office desk?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:640 k... by ledow · · Score: 1

      So your desktops are all 100Mbps (which, you're right, is more than adequate for general use).

      So the switch they plug into has to have a 1Gb backbone (usually one per 12-16 clients for office-type stuff, or else you hit bottlenecks when everyone is online - but for everyone to have "true" 100Mb, you need a 1Gb line per 8-or-so clients).

      Those 1Gb backbones (usually muliple) then have to daisy-chain throughout your site (and thus if your total combined usage is over 1Gb in any one direction, you're stuffed) OR you can give them multiple 1Gb lines or (in the future) a 10Gb line as backbone.

      A 24-port 10/100 with 2 port 10Gb will be a killer product when it emerges, is standardised, and cheap enough. Hell, I could use it NOW.

      The school I work in has a central database run from two bonded 1Gb connections on the server. I think the school would pay even today's prices for 10Gb if it was standardised and ubiquitous enough to be on servers and switches by default. That's a school with 150 machines, most of which can't even go on the database anyway (about 25 do) - hardly a huge demand or unusual circumstances.

      We'd certainly pay for 10Gb ports on the servers and a single 10Gb port on a switch that we then load up with 10/100 and Gigabit connections to ensure the best throughput for those ports. That's for a quite-small database - we don't do video-streaming or anything heavy over that connection.

      The Internet connection? Yeah, we only have 2 x 24Mbps anyway, so it's no use for that. But internal connections often shift a hell of a lot more data (how much data do you think is transferred if you do PXE booting, or centralised file/application storage on servers, etc.?). 10Gb should be available today - it's taking too long. 100Gb is around the corner and could be in every school in 10 years or so, especially with the push towards video-streaming/caching, etc.

      It's hardly rocket-science type uses that apply here. An ordinary school could make good use of 10Gb today and even is beginning to have a *need* for it.

    2. Re:640 k... by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Yes, on my office desk I do. I work with large (TB+) data sets, which we need to make backups of, and generally multiple working copies on various colleagues computers. Working with the data directly over a 100Mbit network is impractical; in fact, having a single copy we all work on isn't a good idea either, because sometimes we modify the data, thereby clobbering it for others.

    3. Re:640 k... by jimicus · · Score: 2

      If you're running two bonded 1Gb connections from a database server to serve 25 users in a school and it's not fast enough, I can only think of two possible explanations:

      1. It's a university rather than a school, and it's a big dataset being used for reasonably high-tech research.
      2. Your problem is not the network.

    4. Re:640 k... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. At home, the difference between 100mb and gigE only comes up on the rare occasion that I need to do a full backup of an entire machine. Most everything else is either local, or media streaming(and even blu-ray only supposes a maximum read-rate of 54mb/s, so uncompressed rips should work just fine over ethernet).

      At the office, where basically everything but the OS is done from network storage, for backup and easy-availability-from-any-PC purposes, 100mb is OK; but for working on larger files you can definitely tell "Ok, that file is on my local drive" or "ah, that would be a network location..." It is hardly unusable; but 100mb is a bit too slow to make local and remote storage indistinguishable in practice(obviously, latency will forever be worse with distance; but with higher link speed the real-world experience of interacting with a file on a fancy SAN should be better than the experience of interacting with the same file on a lowest-bidder local disk...)

    5. Re:640 k... by BandoMcHando · · Score: 2

      The first bit sounds more like a design issue than a problem with network speed, if you're really saturating your uplinks in this way, and heavily utilising the network infrastructure, I suspect you might want something a bit more robust than the setup you have described.

      "A 24-port 10/100 with 2 port 10Gb will be a killer product when it emerges, is standardised, and cheap enough. Hell, I could use it NOW."

      To be honest, the price difference between a 24x10/100 + 2x10Gb and a 24x10/100/1000 + 2x10Gb would probably be so insignificant that people just wouldn't bother with either making it or buying it. The improvements in the step up from 10/100Mb to 1Gb are far more than just speed - proper standardised negotiation for a start, which is notoriously piss-poor on 10/100Mb. And those products already do exist, bit expensive, like $1.5-2.5k or something probably

      "10Gb should be available today"

      Er... it is? Heck, 40Gb is available today. Expensive admitedly, but most definitely available.

    6. Re:640 k... by subreality · · Score: 1

      A 24-port 10/100 with 2 port 10Gb will be a killer product when it emerges, is standardised, and cheap enough. Hell, I could use it NOW.

      The future is here! 10GBASE-T was standardized over 5 years ago, and fiber variants before that. Every major manufacturer's midrange fixed-config edge switch lineup has a 24/48 port 10/100/1000 switch with dual 10Gb uplinks.

      Just a few examples:

      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6406/index.html
      http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/summit-x350.aspx
      http://www.brocade.com/products/all/switches/product-details/fastiron-gs-series/index.page
      http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product.asp?sku=3981100&mfg_part=J9146A&pagemode=ca

    7. Re:640 k... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have GigE at home and I use it. 100M can't keep up with even a crappy hard disk.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:640 k... by lbates_35476 · · Score: 1

      If you had said 1Gb I might have agreed but only for now. Moving digital pictures, digital video, or any other rich content around is taxing even Gb Ethernet. The number one requirement that I see clients having is a connection that is fast enough to keep timely backups of their system on a network device. For now 100Mb just doesn't cut it. Gb Ethernet is adequate, but as the amount of data that users are keeping on their desktops and laptops explodes, only for now.

    9. Re:640 k... by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      I got my personal server with a 3TB raid 5 array at home. And when it is backup time, my Gbps Ethernet card is white hot. My scenario is not about copying stuff to get more stuff but to just do backup of my stuff. I just do photography, and one photo could take up to 100 MB (1 x RAW (5616 x 3744 x 14bits), 1 x Color/Distortion corrected (5616 x 3744 x 16bits), 1+ x Edited (5616 x 3744 x 16bits), 2+ x JPGs at different resolutions). It is mostly OK because I launch the backups just before going to bed, but when the backups run my network is completly on its knees and unusable for anything else. That is to say that you don't need to do crazy thing to max out a Gbps Ethernet network in a non work environment.

    10. Re:640 k... by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

      3. Your doing it wrong. I've seen poorly written database applications that have the client pull entire tables down to process them locally, rather than write proper queries.

    11. Re:640 k... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's more-or-less what I meant by "your problem is not the network" ;)

    12. Re:640 k... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Some of us have internet connections that are faster than 100mb.

    13. Re:640 k... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      My doctor tells me that thinking about people like you is bad for my hypertension, so I try not to...

    14. Re:640 k... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      In 2011, if you're still feeding 100Mbps to the desk for brand new installs, you're being incredibly cheap. 1Gbps ports are no longer that expensive. It's a difference of something like $10 vs $17 per port between 100Mbps and 1Gbps, and getting a decent 100Mbps switch is becoming more difficult. Hell, that statement was true going back as far as 2008 or 2009, when the lower end 24-port gigabit switches first dropped below $500. Not hard now to get a "smart" 48-port gigabit switch for about $800 ($17/port). It won't have all the management features of the high-end switches, but it also won't be a slouch.

      As soon as you start moving gigabyte sized files around, you've just passed the point where 100Mbps still makes sense. Assuming you'll hit 70% of capacity, 100Mbps gives you 7 MB/s which means 146 seconds to transfer a GB worth of data. Switch to gigabit and even if you only manage 30MB/s, you've cut that 146 seconds down to 34 seconds.

      (I generally see speeds in the 45-50 MB/s range on standard sized frame 1Gbps ethernet talking to SAMBA/CIFS. Which is a hell of a lot better then topping out at only 7-8 MB/s for 100Mbps ethernet. Jumbo frames would help a bit.)

      In comparison, USB2 typically tops out at 20-30 MB/s, based on real world usage. If all you have is 100Mbps, then it's faster to copy the files to a USB2 device, walk them across the room, and plug them into the other system then to feed it over the network.

      As soon as your users start touching files larger then 20MB, they're going to notice.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    15. Re:640 k... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Oh, certainly, I'm not expecting a remote disk of given performance to perform equivalently to a local disk of the same performance, particularly for latency sensitive applications. However, at least for basic desktop stuff, the most noticeable lags are in the "poke 600MB file, twiddle fingers" case, rather than the "notice just a tiny bit of latency in everything you do" case. And, at least in our setup, each of the desktops has whatever unspecified-brand disk Dell felt was cheapest that day, while the network storage locations are all located on multiple shelves of 15kRPM SAS drives with substantial backing RAM. Were the desktops equipped with decent SSDs, or PCIe-attached ones, it'd be no contest.

    16. Re:640 k... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      He said "school" and "central data base" couple that with a server running with two bonded nics, and 25 users, there is one logical conclusion: its a shared MS Access file, and its gotten pretty big.

      Those things can easily if not compacted hit 2 gigs or so. 25 users all trying to hit it via cif/smb sounds like loads of bandwidth to me.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    17. Re:640 k... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't understand you use case. If you are really working with data volumes that large than IO is almost certainly your problem. You would be better of sharing a terminal server(on whatever OS you like) or each having your own VM that you remote into in some way. That way that machine can be attached to a SAN with fiber channel or iscsi on bonded Ethernet with more channels than is practical to run to your desk. Also that SAN can have a metric shit tonne of cache, and loads of spindles.

      There is no sane reason for pushing data volumes that large to edge, its always going to under perform.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    18. Re:640 k... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      If he's got 25 people opening a 2GB Access database simultaneously, I refer you to explanation 2. The network is not the problem.

    19. Re:640 k... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Using Win7 at home, I hit 110MB/sec over SMB2.0/IPv6 on my integrated Intel NIC. Best part is the 1.5% cpu that 110MB/sec uses.

      At my last job, we had ~200 computer that did nightly back-ups of the primary user's profile. We had quite a few back-ups that were over 2GB 7-zipped. Quite often, we had to restore these back-ups to their computers because they deleted a file or something. A lot of man hours were saved using gigabit. Our workshop had its own 96port gig switch with dual 10gb uplinks to the network's backbone.

      I would like to say, when working on computer's, having every port in the room with gig links helps speed up your work.

  7. Re:Forget "today" by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    You can get gigabit+ wireless today; but only from highly directional, fixed-location gear, usually marketed as a cheaper alternative to a redundant fiber path between buildings. A perfectly fine solution to the risk of backhoe-induced packet loss; but not exactly laptop ready.

    The assorted 802.11 standards are substantially slower even in theory, and their quoted bandwidth numbers are usually absurdly inflated.

  8. Yes, it's needed by bertok · · Score: 1

    It may not be needed this instant, but there's no such thing as too much bandwidth. Just off the top of my head, I can think a whole bunch of reasons one would want terabit Ethernet:

    - For High Performance Computing and Database Replication -- both of these can result in systems that have performance that is almost entirely limited by the network, or very careful (expensive) programming is required to work around the network. Think about Google's replication bandwidth requirements between data centers! Cloud computing providers will have similar problems.
    - Latency sensitive computing -- n-Tier applications like SAP have CPUs waiting for the network an awful lot. Users have to put up with multi-second response times because of the chattiness of the RPC protocols between the layers. Faster networks have lower latency, and when microseconds count, there's no such thing as too much bandwidth, even if the bandwidth isn't utilized.
    - Converged Networking -- lots of people are merging their Ethernet and Storage (FC) networks, using iSCSI or FCoE. Fibre is already at 8Gbps, and SSD disks are going to create a situation where the disks have many times the speed of the interconnect. Note that bandwidth goes up as the IO response times drop, and we're about to see a drop from ~3ms for 15K RPM disks to under 1 microsecond for next-gen enterprise SSDs! SAN vendors are going to want 100Gbps ports soon, which implies 1Tbps aggregation ports.
    - Bladesystems -- even today, a chassis can take 12-16 blades, each of which has 20 cores at around 3 Ghz. That's the equivalent of 1THz of aggregate computer power! The uplinks can become bottlenecks, especially when they are used for both storage and data.
    - Movie and TV Studios -- there are digital movie cameras just around the corner that can capture 260Mpixel images at 24fps. That's something like 300Gbps if transmitted uncompressed! Throw in stereo, multiple angles, and then 1Tbps starts to sound like a good idea.
    - On-Demand TV -- the aggregate bandwidth requirements of millions of households watching 4 hours of TV a day is just insane. Even with clever replication and multicast technologies, serious bandwidth is required to enable everyone to watch whatever they want, whenever they want.

    Remember that networking is more or less fungible -- interconnects are all about moving bits about. At least in principle, almost any data cable could be replaced by Ethernet, or any similar technology. This 'unification' of networking is an ongoing process: Thunderbolt merged PCI-e and DisplayPort, Ethernet is starting to replace Fibre Channel, USB has eliminated a whole bunch of ports and cables, etc...

    With that in mind, think of 1Tbps Ethernet not as something you'd plug a file server into, but as the interconnect between core switches for metro networks that feed 1Gbps into every house, or the campus uplinks for when 10Gbps to the workstations becomes reasonably common, or a link used by dozens of specialists to perform telepresense surgeries around the country from one central location, or things we haven't even thought of yet...

  9. Re:Forget "today" by peppepz · · Score: 1

    Who cares about our "needs"?

    I believe that developing a "next-generation" standard costs time and money. They probably want to avoid investing millions to develop a technology that people won't buy quickly (perhaps due to the high price that the products would have at the beginning).

  10. Say no to 40Gbps by Blade · · Score: 1

    Come on guys. Powers of 10! You can't be going and moving from my powers of 10 wired Ethernet speeds, how will I do the simple math!

    1 -> 10 -> 100 -> 1000 -> 10000

    Easy maths! Say no to 40Gpbs.

  11. Re:Zetta! by youn · · Score: 1

    Terabit?? Terabit?! Gimme Zettabit Ethernet, give me sex...tillion bits per second, baby!

    you probably mean titillions per second ;)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  12. Target requirement by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    The user should notice no delay or lag anywhere, performing any task. This goes not only for bandwidth but operating systems and applications.

    Obviously there are physical limitations and ultimately, there are compromises to be made but the above should be a design goal always.

  13. Re:Forget "today" by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

    Cat 5e has been pretty much the standard for at least 10 years now. If you had run that 3 years ago, you'd be easily pushing 1Gbps to each device on your network, rather than sharing, under ideal conditions, a maximum of 350Mbps between all your devices.

  14. Re:Stop making new things by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Just wait when Thunderbolt hits 40/100gb. I could see stacked switches using TB for cheap uplinks

  15. Spoilt Kids! by morgauxo · · Score: 2

    In my day we carried our own packets. 10 miles! In the Snow! Uphill both ways!

    1. Re:Spoilt Kids! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You got packets? In our day we had bits. Bits of lead. And there was no routing, you had to go to every single computer and ask its operator "hey, is this your bit?"

  16. pimp my ethernet by Skapare · · Score: 1

    What we should have had all along was a system by which ethernet could dynamically adjust its speed in smaller increments to match the existing wiring capacity, both in terms of bit signaling rate on a pair of wires, to how many pairs are used (e.g. if I use 16 pairs from 4 parallel Cat 7 cables, it should boost the speed as much as it can and use them all in parallel). Of course actual devices can have limits, too, and the standard should specify the minimums (like at least 4 pairs required, additional pairs optional).

    Sure, we need some new tech to get 1000 gigabit/sec. Fiber, no doubt. Multiple fiber? Better modulation? But whatever is done, THIS TIME they need to not set limits. Set a minimum and define the means/protocol for working up to even higher levels. And make this protocol one that can retrofit into older PHY layers so my 1 gigabit/sec network can run at 1.6 gigabit/sec or better if my cables and connectors are nice and clean.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  17. Re:Home use? by Eivind · · Score: 1

    True. Servers and datacenters will need more bandwith earlier. But on the flipside, they're also willing to pay bigger bucks, so overall it evens out.

    A $100 network-card is right-out for the home-market, or atleast very expensice, given that that's 10% of what an entire typical computer costs today. In contrast, a $1000 network-card for a heavy-duty server can be entirely acceptable.

  18. 1 Gig is slow even for a desktop! by lpq · · Score: 1

    I use 1G ethernet @ home and have it 'topped' out as far as speed usage.

    I get up to 125MBps writes and 119MBps reads over CIFS using Win7-64 and a Linux-based Samba server, and it's no where near fast enough to keep up with many apps.

    I'd *like* to go 'diskless' on my Win7 box so all my files would be backed up on my server, but have to make do with only storing my home dir (docs, basically).

    Even with that, a roaming profile can take about 5-10minutes/Gig to save when you logoff or logon (logon is faster if you have the files already cached locally, but it still takes about 1-2 minutes/gig to check that the file are up-to-date).

    Most of the problem is due to network latency -- much of it in Windows, which may not be be helped by a faster network, with a faster network, it might make more sense for hardware manufacturers to build hard-disk interfaces that handle the low-level network I/O in hardware. Larger packet sizes will almost certainly be necessary (am already using 9K 'Jumbo packets' -- largest supported by my off-the-shelf consumer equipment (Intel network cards and netgear switches).
    If disk-like interfaces become prevalent with the low-level network I/O in hardware, then Windows latencies won't be as much of a problem. But right now, how applications ask for data make a big difference. My fastests reads/write occur with 16MB I/O sizes or larger.

    Some apps think they are running 'fast' by using memory mapped I/O -- which on windows gives you a 32KB read size. That reduces the throughput by 66% off the bat. A horrible offender: Mozilla Thunderbird doing IMAPS with I/O chunks averaging about 1.5-2K. A 23Meg file sent from Mozilla TBird takes almost 3 minutes to save to the 'Sent' folder using about 1-2% of the network bandwidth.

    So it's pretty certain that hardware assistance will be needed to offload the low-level I/O for desktop PC's to get benefit from faster networks for most applications.

    But given that, one could finally setup 1 home PC-server, and then get full desktop speeds off of thin-clients in the house.

    Would be nice....