Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Rolling Out 800Gbps Cables This Year

Posted by Unknown on from the silicon-photonics-sounds-cool dept.

phmadore writes "10Gbps cables are what are commonly used in large server centers today, but very soon, according to Ars, 800Gbps cables will be available from Intel. From the article: 'The new cables are based on Intel's Silicon Photonics technology that pushes 25Gbps across each fiber. Last year, Intel demonstrated speeds of 100Gbps in each direction, using eight fibers. A new connector that goes by the name "MXC" holds up to 64 fibers ... The fiber technology also maintains its maximum speed over much greater distances than copper, sending 800Gbps at lengths up to 300 meters, Intel photonics technology lab director Mario Paniccia told Ars. Eventually, the industry could boost the per-line rate from 25Gbps to 50Gbps, doubling the overall throughput without adding fibers, he said.'"

101 comments

  1. Like these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Cable-Version/dp/B000I1X6PM

    http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AudioQuest+-+Diamond+3.3%27+High-Speed+HDMI+Cable+-+Dark+Gray/Black/2383276.p;jsessionid=310CCC6FDFA4F4B48027114FF363F3FC.bbolsp-app04-32?id=1218324437192&skuId=2383276#BVRRWidgetID

    http://www.geekosystem.com/funny-amazon-review/

    Good to know.

    1. Re:Like these? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Well if you just looked at the photos of the cables, you would see it is not a common consumer cable. It is a 64 optic fiber cable that does not exist in other fields. The Denon AKDL1 is simply an ethernet cable. AudioQuest Diamond is simply an HDMI cable. AudioQuest K2 is simply speaker cable. The Intel cable probably will be expensive but it will be used for back-bone usage and not consumer usage.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Like these? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some cables are legitimately expensive because they are expensive to make. Some cables are expensive because they are a niche product and there is only one vendor and then some cables are stupidly expensive simply to prey on idiots.

      These cables undoutablly will not be cheap but they may well be cheaper than terminating and patching all those fibers seperately for those few niches that really need that much bandwidth between the same pair of devices.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    3. Re:Like these? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why aren't backbones using 100 Gbps (an established standard) and WDM for up to 88 channels of 100 Gbps? Though WDM is usually not used for shorter distances, you can already get 8.8 Tbps using commonly available commercial gear on 20 year old fiber.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Like these? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Why aren't backbones using 100 Gbps (an established standard) and WDM for up to 88 channels of 100 Gbps?

      You mean besides cost? Yeah, that pesky factor that everyone is willing ignore because they want things now, now, now. Also just because the backbone is using high capacity fiber does not mean consumers will get it. Google is probably the biggest user of fiber out there and is certainly the biggest user of dark fiber. I'm sure Google is using the highest capacity they can get at a reasonable cost.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Like these? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Backbones are using 100 Gbps. I've seen it and personally done it. But yes, at this time, 100 Gbps is very expensive. This isn't news for nerds, this is a sale on the Home Shopping Network. Yes I understand that it's a cost breakthrough for 1/10th of highest commercially available. But, when 400 Gbps becomes commercially availble (this year, maybe next), about the time Intel's hits the market, it'll be 1/40th of the best commercially available.

      It trades cost and complexity in the wiring for cost. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's cost savings by using old tech. It's as "interesting" as someone posting that they took four older cards and got performance of a mid-end card from 4 cheaper cards with 4x SLI. Nothing "new". Nothing "cutting edge". Just using old tech to undercut the price of the cutting edge. *yawn*

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Like these? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      no, but it will have a ripple effect.

      If 800 per cable becomes the new standard, companies are going to start dumping their existing fiber connectors, and they will get cheap, and there will be less demand. The companies that make them, will most likely keep making the same or similx GBICs, because they already did the R&D, and they are cheaper to produce because the cost of design is already paid for.

      So existing connections will get cheaper. The net effect is the total cost per/ MB/s is going to go down accross the board.

      And when the ISPs have more backbone bandwith, more that is available downstream.

    7. Re:Like these? by Bengie · · Score: 1
      400gb/s is slow.
      https://www.infinera.com/j7/se...

      delivering 8 Terabits per second (Tb/s) capacity using production ready super-channels across 800 kms of ITU-T G.653 Dispersion Shifted Fiber (DSF).

      This is per fiber, uni directional of course.

    8. Re:Like these? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Read two up of my posts (I mention 8.8 Tbps). Your link points out they are using WDM, same as I note. I can do 88*100 Gbps today, using existing standards, not some proprietary crap. Perhaps you should read your own link closer next time.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:Like these? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Some cables are legitimately expensive because they are expensive to make. Some cables are expensive because they are a niche product and there is only one vendor and then some cables are stupidly expensive simply to prey on idiots.

      These cables undoutablly will not be cheap but they may well be cheaper than terminating and patching all those fibers seperately for those few niches that really need that much bandwidth between the same pair of devices.

      Your comments remind me of the $40.00 six foot HDMI cables from that big box store. I went to the dollar store and bought equivalents for, you guessed it, two bucks. Have as yet (2 years) not had a problem with them.

      And the new scam of the year is LEDs.

      Before it became "wrong" to purchase incandescents, the LED lamps were priced 1/3 lower. I paid $7 per bulb, and now the price varies between $14 and $37. LED lamps may pose a fire hazard, not because of low wattage at the LEDS, but because the dropdown from 120 to 10 volts is done in the base, which gets very very hot, in fact, too hot to touch. Where is the danger? You need a porcelain socket, if the lamp is enclosed, but the existing light fixtures that we commmonly use are made with cheap bakelite sockets. Before, the heat was in the bulb, and the socket remained cool, now the bulb is cool but the socket is hot.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    10. Re:Like these? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The difference is this is using WDMD and can carve up that 8.8Tb/s into any combination of channels between 10Gb/s and 500Gb/s. Want 880 10Gb virtual channels? Sure! Want 17 500Gb/s channels? Sure! Mix and match, and you don't need to take down any channels to add new ones. It also uses about 10x-100x less power. Behold, the power of Photon Integrated Circuits(PICs)

    11. Re:Like these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget they've shown it only takes about 8 minutes to provision 2tb/s of bandwidth. That includes the time of installing the line cards and splicing the fiber. Then it's just a matter of configuring carving up the channels, which are entirely dynamic. It's a kind of spread spectrum encoding that allows for overlapping channels to have dedicated bandwidth. You will no longer need to worry about lambdas for virtual channels, it's like vlans for Layer 1. You just tell it how much bandwidth you need, and it finds it. Each 500gb physical channel gets a lambda, but when you carve it up, there are no lambdas involved, it just works. You don't even need to worry about guard-bands between virtual channels, because of the spread spectrum, it can make 100% use of the 500gb with any combination of virtual channels.

    12. Re:Like these? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The physical channels can also be tweaked for range instead of bandwidth. You can reduce the physical channel from 500gb to some slower speed, like 250gb/s and nearly double your range. These PICs have a 700km range with no signal regeneration, and over 1100km if you reduce the logical bandwidth of the physical channel. This has been testing in the real world. Stockholm to Frankfurt with no repeaters and can handle 8tb+, which can all be provisioned in less than 1 hour.

    13. Re:Like these? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You've magically discovered G.709. It will do all you describe, today, without proprietary crap. It even has an installed base. There's nothing compelling in this to get anyone to throw out a better network to adopt this. Yes, I'm sure it's lower power. Most 100Gbps DWDM is for longer distances, so you attenuate the signal for short distances. If it were optimized for shorter distances, it'd use 10-100x less power. We don't need a new standard to do that.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    14. Re:Like these? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I work with that on a regular basis. It's a few years old, but works as you describe. Again, I don't see anything new in this, other than unsubstantiated claims of cost.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    15. Re:Like these? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      This is only temporary, IBM already demonstrated production ready integrated circuits that could be built directly into a CPU/Chipset/etc, that could handle 1tb/s-2tb/s with a 2km range. The process is also so cheap, they expect it to be integrated into low-end cell-phones and disposable electronics. It's really more like a 2tb/s fiber data bus with a 2km range. They actually claim that this new tech is cheaper than using copper traces, once you get past retooling your factory.

  2. Will we still talk ethernet over it? by glasshole · · Score: 2

    Or will it be a new protocol all together. I guess it depends if its suppose to be point to point or not.

    1. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by msauve · · Score: 1

      The real question should be - why are they misleading us?

      This is nothing but marketing. They're comparing 10 Gb Ethernet, which runs over a single fiber pair, to something which runs at 25 Gb, over 32 fiber pairs.

      Meh. 100 Gb Ethernet is commercially available today, which is 4x faster that what the article is hyping.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by pLnCrZy · · Score: 1

      And 100Gbps ethernet runs over 10 fiber pairs.

      Your point?

    3. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Well there is 802.3ad of course so yes. This seems to be more about using silicon diodes and multimode fibre to be cheaper in the short term than using single mode fibre and other laser sources.

    4. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Take 100GBASE-LR4 as an example. It runs over a single fiber pair. It does send 4 "lanes," or frequencies of light, through the fiber using WDM, but it's a single fiber in each direction.

      You're apparently trying to refer to 100GBASE-SR10, but don't know enough to say so.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I work with 100 Gbps that runs over a single pair. And doesn't use DWDM, so you can run 88 channels of it, for 8.8 Tbps. On a single fiber. And the fiber can be 20+ year old single mode (though results depend on quality). Industry standard, no new cabling. Intel is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Or maybe coming up with something not-new in a cheaper price point. 88-channel DWDM is expensive. I think we are paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 per fully-populated 8.8Tbps link. But then, that's for optics capable of 1000+ mile transmission (with amplification). As the market is small for those speeds from server to switch or with any level of port density, so the price is not optimized for common use.

      So from what I can tell, this is less than 1/10th the speed of common industry standard gear, but cheap. Since when did stories about price breakthroughs get front page (other than solar)?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Look at the screenshot in the article - they packed 64 fibers into a cable about the same bulk as Cat5 copper - even the connector, which has 64 'pins'. Just like when somebody makes a new multi-core chip that replaces an entire cluster - that's progress.

    7. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by msauve · · Score: 1

      It's like having a beowulf cluster of Commodore 64s instead of a modern desktop. That's not progress.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re: Will we still talk ethernet over it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about latency? I believe intel intends to use this for not just for networking but as an extension to the computer's bus. So you can have memory in one 1U unit and maybe CPUs in a different one (albeit with a performance penalty)

    9. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by pLnCrZy · · Score: 1

      ... or I know plenty, and didn't feel the need to wave my nerd around to show you how big it is.

      100GBASE-LR4 is still a multiplex. It runs over a single physical fiber pair. That doesn't mean it's a 100Gbps signaling rate.

      My comment was to the one above mine, not to the one my magic hat predicted from you in the future. In the comment to which I replied, the poster was grumbling that 100Gbps ethernet is commercially available today in contrast to "something which runs at 25Gb, over 32 fiber pairs."

      Was my statement wrong? Or did I just not feel the need to enumerate every single PHY variant to satisfy you?

    10. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sorry to step on your tiny pee-pee, but it's obvious you don't have a clue how any of it works, and are relying on searching Wikipedia for your "knowledge."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by ltskinol · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but marketing. They're comparing 10 Gb Ethernet, which runs over a single fiber pair, to something which runs at 25 Gb, over 32 fiber pairs.

      Meh. 100 Gb Ethernet is commercially available today, which is 4x faster that what the article is hyping.

      It's not just marketing.

      25 Gb/s per fiber x 32 fibers = 800 Gb/s. 8x faster than 100 Gb/s.

    12. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by msauve · · Score: 1

      100 Gb/s per fiber x 32 fibers = 3200 Gb/s. 4x faster than this marketing of a promise for the future, and available today.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by ltskinol · · Score: 1

      Ok. Do you have a source for "100 Gb/s per fiber?"

    14. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      "cheaper price point"

      That is the whole point of silicon photonics, mass production.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    15. Re: Will we still talk ethernet over it? by astar · · Score: 1

      Yah. I can have 100Mbs to my house right now off the shelf. Since the fiber is there I expect that if I am needy with deep pockets I can get 1Gbs. And I am sure there are lots of dark Fibre at the road so I can get 100Gbs with lots and lots of money and lots of lead time. So I need the right corporate configuration to get Internet2 to be friendly but that is more just more money plus mission commitment. But my desktop OS does not support ATM/SONET. :-)

      But let us have a little fun here. There are some little arty local nonprofits in my rural area. If the current tech was accessible the local kids could jam with people in Afghanistan and Argentina and with the associated video walls and sound systems the local audience would feel like everyone was in the same room.

      Do you want this?

    16. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Like 1Gbps? When it came out, I paid more than $1000 per port for a Cisco switch for 1G ports. Now, $30 devices have 4+ 1Gbps ports. Just wait, and they will drop. Racing to the bottom with an inferior product isn't good for the customer or the companies involved. Working on cheaper 400 Gbps ports and standards would be better for all.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    17. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      You are talking about 1 Gbps ports, not fiber optic cables.

      What I mean is, fiber optic cables can not be mass-produced (well), termination and testing of ready made patches is still a partly done by hand. That is what silicon photonics is trying to solve, mass production of fiber optic cables with connectors and all. This should drive down the price.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    18. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The story read like they were solving short distance issues. And I don't know whether they are "mass produced" but I can get fiber optic cables that are pretty cheap. Inventing a new standard for connectors, adaptors, and cards to "solve" an already solved problem with low cost that would require re-buying already owned things sounds like a really stupid idea. Do you expect datacenters everywhere to abandon the 100Gbps they already support for this new "cheaper" tech that will cost them lots of money to support? I imagine they'll do it like they do now. Have a supported vendor/part list and work from that. And no, this newer, slower tech will not be used.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    19. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by pLnCrZy · · Score: 1

      That's cute.

      You like to throw jabs and insults, yet you don't actually back any of it up. I'm impressed by you. Really.

  3. Excellent News, Now if only... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    We can get Netflix and Verizon together using this I'll be able to actually watch something now and then...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re: Excellent News, Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Verizon will throttle Netflix to promote their "value added" services. Lol!

  4. ...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...your cable company will still throttle your connection down to 2Mbps for $85 a month.

    1. Re:...and... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Hey now.. I get 25Mbps both ways for $90/month... Well, I get that to any of the speed test servers out there. Now if I actually want to watch Netflix or something, all bets are off.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  5. I prefer Monster cables by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    The guy at Best Buy told me they were the best.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:I prefer Monster cables by noh8rz10 · · Score: 0

      dude, don't be a sucker! they just push it on you because the gross margins are huuuge. my favorite cables come from monoprice. You can get a 3 foot HDMI cable for $3, and a 6 foot cable for $4.

    2. Re:I prefer Monster cables by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      One of you managed to make my eyes bleed, but I'm not sure which one.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:I prefer Monster cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOSH!

    4. Re:I prefer Monster cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      w-h-o-o-o-s-h!

    5. Re:I prefer Monster cables by bobbied · · Score: 0

      Oh yea, got to love the $200 HDMI cables they sell... What part of "digital" do people not get? And why does the signal transfer quality matter as long as it is "good enough" to get the logical one or zero to the destination?

      Always felt sorry for the folks that fell for the "monster cable" thing, even back when it *might* have mattered in speaker cables, not that I knew anybody who could actually hear the difference between 12 AWG and full on monster cables of 10' length. Now days, with digital being the transfer mode, just buy the cheapest cable that works and you will get EXACTLY the same performance as the gilded gold plated super duper signal quality extra bandwidth premium HDMI cables selling for hundreds of dollars. Give me the $4 HDMI cable please, unless you have a cheaper one that's long enough.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:I prefer Monster cables by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I must say these 800GB fiber bundles give very molten and sonorus bass notes below 64 hz.

    7. Re:I prefer Monster cables by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You must be using the mufti-mode fiber cable, switch to the single mode version and you can extend your sonic impact below 15Hz, but only if your Tube amp can handle the increased power required and the magnaplaners are big enough.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:I prefer Monster cables by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      High speed digital cables do require more expensive manufacturing processes. They all use differential signaling and require length matching and controlled impedance within wire pairs. The manufacturing process is a little more demanding than slapping some wires together willy-nilly. That being said, on high volume products like HDMI the added costs are negligible on a per unit basis and the gold plated $200 fluff is just gouging the ignorati.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re:I prefer Monster cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh

    10. Re: I prefer Monster cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. U full of shit!

    11. Re:I prefer Monster cables by bobbied · · Score: 2

      It's not that hard to build an HDMI cable if you have the right wire with close to the right twist. Length variances isn't all that important, it's the twisting of the various pairs that matters. Even that isn't critical until you start talking about really long cables that most people don't need anyway.

      Further there is a standard that all "HDMI" cables must comply with to use the HDMI lable. If it meets the standard, it will work. So, if it is advertised/labeled as "HDMI" and not manufacturer rejects on E-Bay or somebody is using "HDMI" without a license, it's going to work.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:I prefer Monster cables by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I'm not usually one of "those guys"
      buuut

      WHOOSH

    13. Re:I prefer Monster cables by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      If you buy a Monster HDMI cable over a no name HDMI cable you aren't getting the same thing. For 1, the connectors are of much better quality, the copper used is capable of handling more bending without breaking and it is capable of higher frequencies and longer distances. Would I pay as much money as they want for this cable? No but I would pick a better choice than the crappy $5 cable.

      I only partially agree with the argument of "why do we care if it's a digital signal". In the case of HDMI instead of getting a fuzzy signal you will get intermittent connectivity. This is especially true when you break the 5 meter distance. A digital signal is only good if it makes it intact to it's destination. Due to the high frequency used to transfer the data, EMI can deteriorate the signal and it's data significantly.

      Conclusion: Don't waste your money on a outrageously priced cable and don't buy the extremely cheap cable if you plan on exceeding 5 meters.

    14. Re:I prefer Monster cables by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I would concur with your conclusion, just not with your reasons.

      Unless you are moving your HDMI cables a lot, I doubt you are going to have issues as you suggest. A 2 Meter HDMI cable for $5 can be replaced 5 times over the $45 prime super duper name brand, and I'm not so sure the name brand is going to actually be usable at 5x the number of connect/disconnect cycles. Go with the cheep one. The tolerances for 6 foot cables are EASY to meet, even with cheep materials. Even my ElCheepo E-Bay cables work and I've never had one fail due to fatigue or work hardening of the wires. Not that I move them much.

      Going much over 2 Meters is, as you suggest, an area where you are going to spend money because the tolerances are harder to meet when you get to longer cables. You will need more expensive wire that has tighter tolerances per foot and connectors with the less loss and impedance bumps. Which is why you don't find long HDMI cable cheep. But signals don't get "fuzzy" when going digital. What happens is the error rates go up. High error rates may or may not be visible depending on the bit it is, but on HDMI it's likely just not going to work if the error rate is anything you'd notice. So, If the cable works well enough to actually get authorized and show something, it's going to work.

      Remember, the issue is that you MUST meet the same specifications no matter how long the cable is. The longer you make the cable, the harder (and more expensive) it becomes to produce the cable. Short cables can meet the spec with lower quality wire and connectors. There's no need to pay extra for short cables. Use the cheapest one that works, which is likely the shortest one that meets your needs that is called an HDMI cable.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:I prefer Monster cables by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but that fibre aren't yet available with iridium plating on the connectors for crisp bright treble

    16. Re:I prefer Monster cables by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      but on HDMI it's likely just not going to work if the error rate is anything you'd notice

      Not true, when a HDMI connection gets poor you get "sparkles" on the screen.

      Remember, the issue is that you MUST meet the same specifications no matter how long the cable is.

      Afaict (granted I got this information from a cable vendor so take it with a pinch of salt but what they say seems to make a lot of sense)

      1: Apparently the HDMI guys are lax on enforcing the rules with many noncompliant cables on the market.
      2: Many real setups are likely to have multiple cables between source and sink (wallports, passive switch boxes, whatever), even if all the individual cables are compliant the combination may not be.
      3: There are multiple grades of HDMI cable, a HDMI cable certified for the lower grade is not gauranteed to work at 1080p60 (used by most PCs but relatively uncommon with other AV gear)

      Bottom line, if it's a short cable directly between source and sink you probablly don't have to care. If it's a long cable or if it's part of a chain of cables you probablly want to be more choosy.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  6. Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think this is impressive. I know this is different http://tech.slashdot.org/story/99/10/12/1835225/nortel-gets-64-terabits-on-a-single-fibre but Nortel did 80gbits/s on a single wavelength over 480 km in 1999. They had to have multiple rack of equipment to generate all wavelength to get to their 6.4 tbits/s but I don't see why we could not just use one unit. Did it really take 15 years to adapt the tech and integrate it in a server for server to server communication in data centers?

    1. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Nortel did was cool; but ultimately commercially useless. Not only was it too big to use, but it was one of many technologies that led to where Nortel is today - out of business - because they got way too far ahead of the curve.

      Yes, it could be done, but the rackers were necessary to encode/decode it to/from the fibre.

      What Intel has done here is more interesting as it is at a commercially usable scale, or very near it. Now the big question remaining is, did Intel build off of what Nortel did? IOW, did it take the efforts of Nortel over 10 years ago to help produce what Intel did now? It is just a scaled down version that is commercially viable? If it is, then it's just a matter of time as the scales of computing hardware increase that will enable the actual speed increases in the hardware to go up by magnitudes in some similar pattern to Moore's Law without having to change the fibre cable between the systems.

      It'll be even more impressive once they get the optical network routers (also dot-com era tech that bankrupted several companies) in the picture too - so you're not going server-to-server with the fibre cable but operating more like Ethernet does now, only with an optical medium that would allow for a lot more capacity upgrades with only changing the hardware on either end.

    2. Re:Impressive? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason most of us still have just gigabit ethernet, cost. This is not scale up, just scale out where they can bundle a bunch of "cheap" fiber channels together and presumably get the same effect cheaper. I can't imagine the saving being that much over 64 single channel solutions though, you still need the same number of transmitters, receivers and strings of fiber-optic, it only takes slightly less space and you can save a tiny bit on insulation but you'd be 90% of the way there with cable strips.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Impressive? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      And when their patents run out I'm sure we'll see some great thing. I'm pretty sure things like partly optical domain QPSK encoding/decoding could be miniaturized and commoditized right now ... yeah the necessary photonic devices are complex and bleeding edge, but not as bleeding edge as the processes Intel uses for it's commodity processors.

      Patents are probably the biggest reason why Intel uses this many fibers rather than more intelligent signalling.

  7. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here in the States, our ISPs will keep their shitty service and infrastructure. Regardless of Intel's products, I'll be stuck with my 1.5/0.25Mbps ADSL from HellSouth (an AT&T company at $42/mo) - unless, I pony up for their Uverse shit and get landline and TV shoved up my ass then I can get a whole 3.0Mbps - woohoo.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by alen · · Score: 1

      $uck$ to be you

      in NYC time warner is upgrading my 20/2 internet to 50/5 later this year for the same price i'm paying now. they doubled speeds last year as well.

      later this year the top tier for TWC in NYC and LA is going to be 300/50 or so

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I get something like 40/8 but Netflix doesn't care. I still get lots of buffering. Good luck with your 50/5.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Here in upstate NY, I pay for 15mbps but actually get closer to 8mbps. Since there's no FIOS or other high speed Internet service where I live, Time Warner Cable has no incentive to upgrade their network by me. They might eventually get around to it, but they'll take their time. (I'm not in a rural area so they don't even have that excuse.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Doesn't matter by alen · · Score: 1

      i can stream netflix and HBO Go or time warner cable live TV at the same time in HD with no problems on 20/2

      of course almost everything i have is on cat 5 and i'm not streaming into different rooms via wifi

    5. Re: Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, the United States will eventually catch up with the rest of the world in the year 2120, but it'll cost you 100x! Gotta love monopoly communications provided by private-government companies. : )

      But hey, the point of our comm networks is spying, and that it does well!

  8. 25 Gbps is the fastest the industry can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028095.500-ultrafast-fibre-optics-set-new-speed-record.html

    At the Optical Fiber Communications Conference in Los Angeles last month, Dayou Qian, also of NEC, reported a total data-sending rate of 101.7 terabits per second through 165 kilometres of fibre. He did this by squeezing light pulses from 370 separate lasers into the pulse received by the receiver. Each laser emitted its own narrow sliver of the infrared spectrum, and each contained several polarities, phases and amplitudes of light waves to code each packet of information.

    At the same conference, Jun Sakaguchi of Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications Technology in Tokyo also reported reaching the 100-terabit benchmark, this time using a different method. Instead of using a fibre with only one light-guiding core, as happens now, Sakaguchi's team developed a fibre with seven. Each core carried 15.6 terabits per second, yielding a total of 109 terabits per second. "We introduced a new dimension, spatial multiplication, to increasing transmission capacity," Sakaguchi says.

  9. Great by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    At last something that can keep up with my online porn feed

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude.. How many HD screens can you watch at one time in Mother's basement? How many fit down there?

      You sir, have a problem if 15Mbps isn't enough. You need to consider some kind of video compression or something...

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's got 209 screens.

      Let's assume he has very expensive tastes in porn, and likes to watch it at 4K. A 4K video has a bitrate of 477.76 MB/second. Since this stream is equivalent to 100 GB/sec, that works out to a theoretical limit of 209.31 simultaneous streams possible. Rounding down to account for audio streams (209 CD-quality audio streams works out to 36.86 MB/sec), that works out to 209 simultaneous streams of porn.

      I conclude that he must be the Architect from the nonexistent Matrix sequels, living with his mother. And he is a lonely, lonely man.

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he has very disturbing tastes in porn, and 800Gbps is what it takes to get Tor to connect at 1Mbps.

  10. Thank you Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The major manufacturers of fiber optic networking equipment don't have the money to invest in developing newer, high speed lasers. Intel does, and has been working on photonics, silicon lasers in particular, for a long time... Intel will get the next gen high speed optical network market all to itself. Thank you intel for investing in the future of networking. May your business be profitable.

  11. MXC by pulski · · Score: 1

    Most Extreme Data Transfer Challenge?

    All of your data will get there, however half of it will be broken and the other half poorly translated.

  12. Comcast Will Raise Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter if the new technology increases speeds or reduces time/complexity, the cable ISPs will raise prices. The service will stay exactly the same, so 800 Gbps on a server won't matter since everyone will be throttled to 5 Mbps.

    1. Re:Comcast Will Raise Prices by alen · · Score: 1

      strange,

      for the last 10 years i've had cable internet service the price has been about the same and risen only about $5 per month and my speed has gone from 5mbps or so to 20mbps down. and will go up to 50mbps for the same price by the end of this year

  13. privacy to trash at 800 gbps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Created for the NSA. Just saying.

  14. I just order the double insulated from ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just order the double insulated from ebay. Cheap Chinese knock off of Monster but at least I know the monstrosity that is my home entertainment system wont bleed through to my cable and it only cost me $4 more to get it. Oh and 3 days wait time.

    I don't mind paying a decent markup for quality or convenience but when stores/brands pull 1000% markups they just beg me to go else where.

  15. NetFlix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With my shitty BellSouth 1.5/.25 service, NetFlix STILL works great!

    I tell you, if there's any NetFlix engineers here, hats off to you!

    Plex streaming YouTube videos, OTOH ....

  16. I can get faster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can get faster than 1.5/.25 if I'm willing to get some sort of TV service. I don't want it.

    I have Comcast and AT&T (Bellsouth) where I live. And as far as ADSL is concerned, Bellsouth is the only game in town and because they want everyone to go to their overpriced UVerse service, they are not doing anything with their ADSL service.

  17. OIF-MSA-100GLH = 1.2Tbs bidirectional via 24MPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A OIF-MSA-100GLH compliant device = 12 Tbs bidirectional via 24MPO Fiber cable.
    That's 4 Tbs bidirectional per fiber pair strand.
    Typically the transmission distance is 100Km before optical amplification is required. With Amplification that range extends to 1000Km.

    An MSA device say from Oclaro or Fujitsu uses Dual Polarization Quadrature Phase Shift Keying rather then on off keying so that each wavelength in the DWDM range can carry 100Gbs, say 100Gb Ethernet or OTU4. Typically these devices are right now multiple of $10K in price, but as technology an manufacturing techniques improve I'm sure we'll hit a cheaper price suitable for large scale data center roll out.

    I can see this intel thing as a big deal but only if the cost is relatively cheap.

    1. Re:OIF-MSA-100GLH = 1.2Tbs bidirectional via 24MPO by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Over long distances your main costs are the fiber and optical amplifiers, so fancy tricks at the transmitter and receiver to get more out of said infrastructure make a lot of sense.

      Over short distances the fiber is a smaller part of the overall cost and so it's often cheaper to just lay more fiber than to bother with the fancy tricks.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  18. durrrrrrrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im stoooopid durrrrrrrrr

  19. How dare you! by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I conclude that he must be the Architect from the nonexistent Matrix sequels, living with his mother. And he is a lonely, lonely man.

    How dare you begin a sentence with "And".

  20. Everyone's getting faster except me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no competition in my area for ISPs. I'm paying $50/month for a nominally 4mbps download and actually getting about 1mbps. USA! USA! USA!

  21. Re: OIF-MSA-100GLH = 1.2Tbs bidirectional via 24MP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't need to be cheap. Just cost effective.

  22. It is all a matter of cost and size by hamjudo · · Score: 1

    These will be used in data centers where it is common to have redundant systems connected with redundant cables, in order to maintain really high uptimes. Say a hypothetical system has a cluster which consists of 16 compute nodes and 2 storage nodes, Each of CPUserver01 through CPUserver16 will have two of these cables going to storageServerA, and two going to StorageServerB. For a total of 64 of these cables, for that one little compute cluster. Which would leave it an island, so of course there will be more network interfaces.

    For this technology to get any market penetration, it will need to be cost effective at these bandwidths, and fit in the racks. Historically, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing, DWDM has been great at getting a lot of bandwidth on to a very long single strand (comparatively) inexpensive fiber, which allows in fiber signal amplification, and is the winner at going the distance, but not so good at being cost effective, or space efficient. These things, with the associated drivers should take up far less space inside the servers, and cost less, but they only will get 800Gbits in each direction, only go 300 meters, and use much more expensive (per kilometer of cable) 64 strand fiber.

  23. Writing data by blandcramration · · Score: 1

    I'll be impressed when we can write data this fast, not when we can transfer it

  24. FTTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean fresh fiber optic cables need to be laid or does this change only affect the endpoints? e,g new modems.

  25. Who cares? by DaMattster · · Score: 0

    They can have all the speed in the world but it honestly doesn't amount to a scrap heap of shit. I'd be more interested in better, more reliable broadband for consumers and small business. Our broadband is still late 1990s, early 2000s technology while the rest of the world can boast gigabit to the home. I have a friend in England who has a full 100MB symmetric line for what I'm paying Verizon 50 down and 25 up and he even gets an, OMG wait for it, a static IP without bandwidth caps and port blocking. I'm sick of hearing telcos brag about their "high speed" is the best. The truth is, and no surprise here, they suck!

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like more frosting on poptarts myself. Not sure why you are bitching about verizon here, pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

    2. Re:Who cares? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I have a friend in England who has a full 100MB symmetric line for what I'm paying Verizon 50 down and 25 up and he even gets an, OMG wait for it, a static IP without bandwidth caps and port blocking.

      Where I am (in a suburban area in england) the best broadband services are openreach FTTC (up to 80mbps down, up to 20mbps up, subject to the condition of your phone line) and virgin media cable up to 152mbps down, difficult to find the upload speeds (last I checked the top upload speed they were offering to new customers was 5mbps but upload speeds are not something they like to talk about), also a shitty provider in other ways. Where my parents are (also in suburbia but slightly further out) the openreach FTTC is available but the cable isn't. People in the countryside generally fare even worse.

      Note that both of the above systems are misleadingly advertised as "fiber optic"

      Yes there are isolated areas in the UK where a new upstart is delivering great service and their are isolated areas where openreach are experimenting with FTTH but just like in america these areas with great service are the exception not the rule.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  26. Bandwidth is easy, latency is hard by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    When we hear these impressive bandwidth numbers, usually a prophecy that "the future is on the cloud" is not far behind. Once our connection to the server is faster, we will get everything we could want without doing any of the computing on site. But people forget that a very low latency is also very important to the cloud experience, and there is very little that we can do about latency. At some point, we just run into fundamental laws of nature. I have a feeling that in my lifetime, consumers will basically stop caring about the width of their pipe (for most, it will be wide enough), and prefer the ISPs that give them the best ping. People who are thinking a few tech generations in the future would do well to keep this in mind, I think.

  27. Won't Affect Provisioning by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    So, data centers are going to realize a > 8x increase in speed. Awesome. Do you think Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, and every regional carrier along the way are going to cheerfully provision more bandwidth to their customers? Or will their pencil pushers continue to view bandwidth as a scarce resource to be jealously guarded and sold for a kings' ransom?

    We've had cable and DSL modems out in customers' basements for years now that are capable of > 10-20 megabit speed, yet according to a recent NetFlix study, the average U.S. household is actually getting something closer to 2.
    http://ispspeedindex.netflix.c...

    Hurray to the boffins at Intel for devising a way for Pixar to allow their server farm to render Woody & Buzz's left butt cheeks 6x faster, university to run earthquake simulators at record speed and the NSA to read your grandmas sexts to Grandpa over at Shady Pines in real time, but someone please find a way to to put speed increases in the hands of consumers without affecting price.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  28. I don't know if I can take the name MXC seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll get images of tiny Japanese men falling on their face with horrible English voice overs.

    What does MXC stand for anyways? Most eXtreme Cable?

  29. Improvements for more modest uses? by tji · · Score: 1

    This tech looks cool. But, it's a bit surprising to me that we've not had any leaps in basic networking for a long time. Everything is gigabit ethernet. I thought 10Gbps Ethernet would have trickled down to some home usage by now.

    A 10Gbps connnection to my NAS, hypervisor, or server would be very useful. Or, just an uplink between switches.. But, I've not seen anything available.

    1. Re:Improvements for more modest uses? by Deathspawner · · Score: 1

      I thought 10Gbps Ethernet would have trickled down to some home usage by now.

      I'm with you. It drives me nuts that nothing better than 1Gbps has come along yet. Heck, I'd be thrilled with 5Gbps... it doesn't -have- to be 10Gbps.

    2. Re:Improvements for more modest uses? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      That is what silicon photonics is promising.

      Affordable fiber.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    3. Re:Improvements for more modest uses? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Intel stated that 10gb becomes simple, cheaper, and power efficient once you get to 22nm. Once the prices of 22nm gets affordable to NIC manufacturers, expect to see 10gb copper NICs doing to 1gb what 1gb did to 100mb.

      Intel won't be using 22nm for non-CPUs until 14nm takes off. It will be a bit before we start to see chipset integrated 10gb, but not too far off. Would be nice to see these paired with PCIe4.0

    4. Re:Improvements for more modest uses? by Deathspawner · · Score: 1

      Very good points. I can't wait.

  30. We already have 3 100 Gbps ports by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Actually, at the UW, we already have three 100 Gbps ports - two in the 4545 building and one in the basement of the UW Tower. And a bunch of 40 Gbps ports around the Seattle campus.

    The surprising thing is there aren't any down at the UW Medical Center. Where you'd expect more demand.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --