New Data Transmission Speed Record 262
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmag is reporting that a team of German and Japanese scientists have collaborated to shatter the world record for data transmission speed. From the article: "By transmitting a data signal at 2.56 terabits per second over a 160-kilometer link (equivalent to 2,560,000,000,000 bits per second or the contents of 60 DVDs) the researchers bettered the old record of 1.28 terabits per second held by a Japanese group. By comparison, the fastest high-speed links currently carry data at a maximum 40 Gbit/s, or around 50 times slower."
2.56 Terabits = ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:2.56 Terabits = ? (Score:3, Informative)
Most slashdotting happens because of hardware issues, not upstream bandwidth.
Although, 2tb of bandwidth would be freakin' amazing for some stuff for a botnet to get ahold of..
Quick! Everyone call up the nearest script kiddie and get to work!
Terabits per second!? (Score:4, Funny)
For the uninitiated, that's a microfortnight.
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, they did say 60 DVDs. So depending on your proclivities, that's
18 hours of phone sex ads + 720 'standard' sex scenes
180,000 pop shots on compilation
240 hours of midget porn
6,000 discrete pee sequences
No less than 100 gang-bang sequences
500 bukkakke events
600 different MILFs
1 million or so jpeg images
I mean, these are known measures.
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:2)
The summary said it. 60 DVDs per second. At that speed you could get every porn DVD ever made in about 3 years. When can I start?
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe not, but I can damn well try.
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, I want to know how fast that is in Libraries-Of-Congress-per-second.
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
1 LOC = 20 tebibytes
1 tebibyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
Doesn't sound nearly as impresive, perhaps marketing should stick with 6,984,919,309 nLoc/hr
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:2)
Re:Terabits per second!? (Score:2)
How much in terms of (Score:3, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_unit
60 DVDs per second (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, converting to MPAA units that's 300 years of jail time per second! Smokin!
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:5, Funny)
Remember that the MPAA thinks in dollars.
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
125,000 * 60 = 7,500,000
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
I thought their metric was "technophobic single mothers cowering in fear per second".
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
No, no, you're still not thinking like the **AAs. At 4MB each, we have 640000 MP3s per second. At $125,000 each, that's $80,000,000,000 per second, or about 1.6 Bill Gates per second (who was overheard to say that we'll never, ever need anything faster, since "640K infringements per second ought to be enough for anybody").
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:2)
Re:60 DVDs per second (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm, I sense the possibility of time travel hidden in there somewhere.
Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:4, Insightful)
It's that throughput is generally what actually matters when sending data. In other words, that how much actual payload is being send, minus any overhead. If you've got a decent amount of overhead, your actual throughput might be a bit less. So it makes more sense to talk about bandwidth in bits per second, so as not to confuse it with actual throughput.
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
In short: marketing.
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
No we don't. Disks the smallest addressable unit of a disk is a sector. On most hard disks, a sector is 512 bytes (some are moving to 4096 in the near future). CD sectors are 2352 bytes (before sectors).
If the concept of using bits or bytes for measurement was driven by marketing then don't you think hard drive manufacturers woul
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
In your application code, yes, you can access one byte at a time. But the OS can't. If you request 1 byte, the OS reads 512 off the disk and gives you the first one. Likewise, if you write 1 byte, the OS has to read 512 off
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:5, Informative)
In recent years, the use of a byte to mean 8 bits is nearly ubiquitous
Meaning even today it's not universal.
A contiguous sequence of binary bits in a serial data stream, such as in modem or satellite communications, or from a disk-drive head, which is the smallest meaningful unit of data. These bytes might include start bits, stop bits, or parity bits, and thus could vary from 7 to 12 bits to contain a single 7-bit ASCII code.
Here I think is the most revealing definition for the discussion in the present context.
The eight-bit byte is often called an octet in formal contexts such as industry standards, as well as in networking and telecommunication, in order to avoid any confusion about the number of bits involved.
Another site [uiowa.edu] says that:
* Pre-1965, and including the IBM 701, bytes were almost always 6 bits, though they weren't called that much then, but rather characters.
* 9 bits were sometimes used
* The PDP-6, PDP-10, and DECsystem 20 all supported changing the byte size with instructions from 1 to 36 bits (probably only some of those)
The latter reference, looking up the PDP-10 on Wikipedia, gives this quote:
Some aspects of the instruction set are still considered unsurpassed, most notably the "byte" instructions, which operated on arbitrary sized bit-fields (at that time a byte was not necessarily eight bits)
"not were" , but "are used" (Score:2)
Some of us are still working on 36 bits words, 9 bits per byte
Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (Score:2)
And so it begins (Score:3, Funny)
We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate
The Italians are already trying to find ways to use this technology to make the trains run on time.
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
This was shortly before the Italians announced their adoption of the new method. Which was shortly followed by their switch back to the Western standards.
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
Germany and Japan had a secret alliance. Japan agreed that whomever Germany declared war against, Japan would follow suit, and vice versa. Japan delcared war against the United States of America on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor. The following day, the United States declared war on the country of Japan. Because of the secret reciprocal agreement between Germany and Japan, Germany was forced to declare war on the United States.
At this t
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
So technically, it was the Japanese who liberated Europe?
If you want to look at it that way, it was the Soviets who liberated Europe. Hitler's decision to attack Russia was the beginning of the end for Germany. The Eastern Front diverted and tied down much of Germany's military power, in a conflict that they were almost certain to lose. No one will know for sure, of course, but it's probable that the allies eventually would have liberated Europe even without the direct involvement of the US. The end
Re:revisionist bull. Without US supplies, Russia w (Score:3, Insightful)
You notice that you call my post "revisionist bullshit" and then proceed not to disagree with me.
Your post primarily says that once the US entered the fray the end was clear, which I completely agree with. What I said was that even if the US had not entered the war, Germany still would have lost (though without US involvement, Japan would probably rule much of Asia). It's interesting that you mention supplies: The US was supplying the allied forces before it actually entered the war, but the US supplie
there were thousands of tons of supplies to russia (Score:2)
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
Germany was no longer fighting a dual-front war, with Russia at the east and England at the west. Germany was now fighting a three-front war, with the third front being the United States.
A "front" is a geographical region along which a fight is taking place. When you count fronts, you count the number of regions in which substantial (for the conflict) fighting is taking place. The number of opposing nations or organizations doesn't matter.
Although Germany was involved in the conflict in Africa and in
Re:And so it begins (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, breaded and deep fried sushi, dark beer in small cups, and Teryaki sausages, LOTS of cabbage, and bubble-tea streusel.
Oh, the humanity of it all.
Re:And so it begins (Score:2)
everybody needs this at home (Score:2)
http://www.onzin.nl/internetdownload/ [onzin.nl]
Re:everybody needs this at home (Score:2)
http://www.onzin.nl/internetdownload/ [onzin.nl] [onzin.nl]
The site could use more bandwidth. I'm sitting on an enterprise broadband connection, but could only manage dial-up speeds of 14.2KB/second from them. We must have slashdoted them.
Way cool... (Score:2, Funny)
A 160-kilometer link? (Score:3, Funny)
Basic requirement soon enough. (Score:2, Funny)
Try 10,000 Kilometers (Score:2)
160 kilometers? large transoceanic traffic link? When 10,000 kilometers of non-repeated distance can be achieved, I'll be impressed. Until then it's nothing but a bragging right.
Re:Try 10,000 Kilometers (Score:3, Interesting)
fiber optics (Score:2)
Is this similar to DDR memory where they pack info into the upward swing of the wave, and on the downward swing, as well as the troughs and peaks of the waves?
60 DVD:s per second... (Score:5, Funny)
faster than ram (Score:2)
Re:faster than ram (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:faster than ram (Score:2)
Single-channel only (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Single-channel only (Score:2)
Ooooh Multiple choice! (Score:2)
A.) Make internet (connection fees) 50x cheaper.
2.) Finally still western telecoms complaining about the difficulties of offering fast service.
3.) Be considered too expensive to implement until someone who can't be bribed or bough enters the telecom game.
4.) Never see the light of day.
5.) Be implemented perfectly showing the telecommunications industy has a commitment to quality!
Until the kit can handle it... (Score:2)
It's great that the transmission hardware is up to silly speeds, but until you can take that incoming data and packet switch/route it properly, until there are servers that can process even a tenth of that data in a meaningful
Gee, that's fast.... (Score:2)
In other news..... (Score:2)
Cable company conflict of interest (Score:2)
This is public muni FTTH FIOS is important . More transmission speed and better value.
The cable co's don't want anything to compete against their channels. That would be stupid. They are holding everyone back.
The internet backbone also doesn't want more transmission speed. They are just phone companies that want to gouge people.
If we could bypass all of them with a national fiber network.........
Re:Cable company conflict of interest (Score:2)
Re:Digg Loses (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.
Fark has the time sensitive or humorous news, with clever or funny comments.
Digg is somewhere in the middle, with the immature comments or spam I can find in an AIM chat room if I need it.
Re:Digg Wins (Score:3, Informative)
Trying to have good discussions in Digg is futile because of its moderation system. And whenever discussion worthy news are available they are quickly buried by ten articles of what someone somewhere might have said about the color
Nothing ever makes it out of the lab (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing ever makes it out of the lab (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nothing ever makes it out of the lab (Score:2)
Re:in libraries of congress please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, that's OC-What? (Score:2)
Re:So, that's OC-What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So, that's OC-What? (Score:2)
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:5, Informative)
Now, typical intermodal containers (as used on big rig trucks) are 8.5' by 8.5' by 40', or 2890ft^3. Converted to metric, this is about 82m^3, which is less than the 138.24m^3 required.
In other words, no, a truck full of DVDs is NOT faster than this connection!*
*unless you put the DVDs on spindles instead of in cases.
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:2)
You have to add the "how long it takes to burn n DVD's and pack them on the sending side, and how long it takes to unpack, stick in a drive and read them on the receiving side.
And we haven't even started talking latency yet....
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:2)
If you just need the information then the only issues is storage at the far end, and the ability to mount the a disk image (which most modern operating systems should be able to do).
Of course, in the hybrid case where you can produce a disk + colateral "relatively" rapidly for sale to a consumer, then the second opti
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's pretty slow (Score:2, Funny)
doesn't work! (Score:2)
there's no way a truck full of DVDs competes, even if it *does* use spindles
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:2)
Re:Not filling 1gb pipe (Score:2)
Re:Not filling 1gb pipe (Score:2)
Re:Not filling 1gb pipe (Score:2)
Filesystem and Ultra320 SCSI are our chokepoint (Score:4, Interesting)
The transfers run about 4-6hrs and I was looking for choke points to shorten the time. The data simply won't go to disk any faster on the U320 SCSI bus. We consistently measure 20MBps max to disk, which makes sense. U320 means 320Mbps/8 = 20MBps. So I get the same max numbers for local disk-to-disk that I get for SAN-to-disk, and the same results regardless of OS. If this rate could be maintained, six servers doing the transfer should just about saturate the backbone, but the overhead of file access and FS management mean the max is only maintained for a moment as a few particularly large files come across. With lots of smaller files being copied, the average rate goes down to 2MBps.
If these servers had to be optimized for SAN-to-Disk transfer rate, they would have to have multiple SCSI controllers and HBAs, paired up on seperate PCI busses, and the data would have to be optimized with fewer/larger files.
Of course, the 2.5TBps link is of interest to ISPs and regional carriers not server labs, but I thought I'd throw in what we've seen on the utilization of a 2Gbps FC link in a SAN setup.
Re:Filesystem and Ultra320 SCSI are our chokepoint (Score:2)
Er, no, U320 means 320MBps, or about 2.5Gbps. 320Mbps is SCSI-2 Wide (16 bit) or SCSI-3 Narrow (8 bit), which were standard about 15 years ago.
Go get some coffee.
Re:Filesystem and Ultra320 SCSI are our chokepoint (Score:2)
Re:Filesystem and Ultra320 SCSI are our chokepoint (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, in many applications, latency of varying sorts quickly chews that number down to something a bit more sane.
If you're limited to a hard 20MB/sec over SCSI, the first thing I would
Re:Well thats nothing (Score:2)
Re:The last mile... (Score:2)
Re:Still pretty slow... (Score:2)
Assume the U-Haul truck maintains an average speed of 80km/h (roughly 50mph). It would take 2 hours for it to travel the entire distance. At a speed of 2.56 terabits/sec, this network link could transmit 2.25 petabytes over 2 hours. 2.25 petabytes = about half a million DVDs.
I'd love to see a U-Haul truck carrying half a million DVDs. More than that, I would love to see the effort involved in burning, packing, loading, unloading, un
Re:What did they send? (Score:2)
Re:shattered? ok but... (Score:2)