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.'"

13 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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...

    5. 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.

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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...

  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. Spoilt Kids! by morgauxo · · Score: 2

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