Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Terabit Ethernet By 2010

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the holy-patootie dept.

The Internet 306

Eric Frost writes "From Directions Magazine: 'Because it is now impossible to sell networking unless it is called Ethernet (regardless of the actual protocols used), it is likely that 1 Terabit Ethernet and even 10 Terabit Ethernet (using 100 wavelengths used by 100 gigabit per second transmitter / receiver pairs) may soon be announced. Only a protocol name change is needed. And the name change is merely the acknowledgment that Ethernet protocols can tunnel through other protocols (and vice versa).'"

cancel ×

306 comments

Good stuff (4, Interesting)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807383)

From the article: "iSCSI (Internet SCSI) over Ethernet is replacing: *SCSI (Small Computer Systems Interface..."

iSCSI is far superior to stadard SCSI for obvious reasons, and its widespread adoption will really spark a massive gain in the SAN (Storage Area Network) market. The technology is there, now we just need more major vendors of SCSI devices (especially storage and image filing systems) to make more SCSI devices that support iSCSI natively and applications that take advantage of it. Combined with practical solutions from vendors of network storage software like Veritas we could see some major spending in IT. And more money being spent on IT is always a good thing.

I don't keep up much with the progress of the Ethernet technologies at hand, so is it realistic to suppose that the practical implementation/creation of 100 Gigabit Ethernet, 1 Terabit Ethernet, and 10 Terabit Ethernet will be seperated by merely two years each?

"Because it is now impossible to sell networking unless it is called Ethernet". Incorrect. You can easily sell network gear that is tagged with the "WiFi" designation.

Re:Good stuff (5, Interesting)

prrole (639100) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807690)

iSCSI is NOT far superior to SCSI, or fibrechannel. iSCSI has massive issues related to deterministic latency, and computational cost of processing TCP/IP at gigabit speeds. You may see some growth in the of iSCSI in the workgroup segment, but I don't see iSCSI replacing fc/scsi in the near future for mission critical computing.

Re:Good stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807694)

Because it has an "i" in front of it? iSCSI is NOT superior to SCSI for everything, only for a few very narrow niches. Are you actually a system admin at a large server installation, or do you just read the in-flight magazines and swallow?

Re:Good stuff (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807721)

There is however and inheirant and show stopping problemt with all the over ethernet type storage schemes (yes I am looking at you NetApp ya lieing sons-of-....). That problem is that the market currently does not have a feasible TOE (tcp/ip offload engine) card to actually give us any performance.

Right now you're wasting your time putting more than a single 1 Gbps ethernet card into an Intel server for anything other than redundancy as the servers can't even drive that.

Until we have the protocol handled in hardware rather than system software you simply won't get anything resembling decent performance out of it.

Ha Ha - 10 terabit FP (-1)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807384)

This is a FP. There are others like it, but this one is mine. Props to the CLIT!

YOU FAIL IT, PRIVATE PYLE. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807456)

Get the fuck off my board!! Get off!! I am going to stomp your balls, private pyle, so you cannot soil the earth with your children!!!

And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (5, Interesting)

raehl (609729) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807385)

Is there going to be storage that can read/write that fast by 2010 too?

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (2, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807409)

You wont do anything to your desktop, however (with the right switches and routers) you can have 100,000 100mbit desktops running at full speed.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807411)

Play games with very little delay? That's what i would do if I and everyone else had a huge amount of bandwidth

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807474)

Unfortunately, bandwidth plays but a miniscule part in online gaming. Latency (delay) is what makes-or-breaks game play.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807669)

Isn't is scary how few people really understand that? I consult for a lawyer's office that got a cheap T1 from a local ISP in the Chicago area. This is a tier 3 provider, something like 14 hops to get to slashdot (which is far more than with my dial-up Earthlink account), and he wonders why his terminal server sessions are so slow.

"But I have a T1!" is the rally cry heard through out the office.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (5, Informative)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807484)

Bandwidth doesn't necessarily help play games with very little delay. For quick responses in games, you need low one-way latency. A network may be capable of throwing out 1000 zillion bytes/second, but if it takes too long to send out the first packet, the game isn't going to work very well. One-way latency is way more important than bandwidth when the goal is to send out many small packets as soon as possible. High bandwidth would greatly speed up large downloads, but for faster response in games, etc, lower latency is what you need.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (2, Insightful)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807552)

yes and no, while latency is obviously a big factor in your online experience, having unlimited bandwidth means that you could afford to send to the clients every single position for every actor (including orientation etc.) and moveable object instead of having to rely excessively on client-side compensation and prediction.

While the perceived lag would remain pretty much the same, you'd be sure that the client-represented world would be much closer to the 'server world' than it is now.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (2, Insightful)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807587)

having unlimited bandwidth means that you could afford to send to the clients every single position for every actor (including orientation etc.) and moveable object instead of having to rely excessively on client-side compensation and prediction.

and then the aimbots and see-through-wall hacks become even more effective, as they can track every single player in the screen at all times.

Most client-side compensation and prediction is latency compensation anyway.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (4, Funny)

danila (69889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807634)

and then the aimbots and see-through-wall hacks become even more effective, as they can track every single player in the screen at all times.

To solve the cheating problem "once and for all", you can render the picture on the server and just send that 1024x768 bitmap 60 times per second. :) Try to see-through that!

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807719)

125 fps would be more appropriate...

But I wonder if this is a long term solution?

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807677)

Sure. All the major network backbones across the internet will upgrade everything to support home users' 10Tbps access. That would be some major undertaking... and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They can barely support home users with DSL/Cable speeds of 1Mbps+.

Look... your computer would never touch 10Tbps playing an online game. Let alone even 100Mbps. Or 10Mbps. Sure, with more bandwidth, things such as large video feeds, etc could be included but 10Tbps won't be needed by a home users for a very long time.

This technology is slated for the big Internet backbones. You're lucky if you have 100Mbps from your home by 2010.

Hell (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807418)

...is there going to be a bus on desktop machines that can read or write that fast?

Probably not. But I could definitely see it being useful for top-end server systems with hugely parallel storage and memory access.

Not really... (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807563)

Latency is the killer there, not really bandwidth.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (5, Interesting)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807425)

I guess there will only be one computer, at this time : a virtual computer distributed over millions of physical nodes, so the storage will might be each of these nodes' memory... Like Freenet but also aimed at distributing workload.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

dsmoses (653429) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807594)

So Sun was right after all. The Network is the Computer.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (0, Offtopic)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807645)

a virtual computer distributed over millions of physical nodes, so the storage will might be each of these nodes' memory... Like Freenet but also aimed at distributing workload.

More like Skynet

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (0, Offtopic)

normal_guy (676813) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807744)

And you'll be able to buy it with Whuffie.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (3, Interesting)

Abm0raz (668337) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807440)

Will it be meant for actual LAN usage? I think it's being designed more for back-bone-like reasons. I can't even get my drives to transfer large amounts of data back and forth in a reasonable time, so I can't see the need unless we go to entirely solid state drives.

but ... imagine a beowulf cluster interconnected by lines of these ... ;)

-Ab

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

RunzWithScissors (567704) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807473)

Return to Castle Wolfenstein Multiplayer, really freaking fast! -Runz

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (4, Funny)

rmarll (161697) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807524)

People/institutions with large storage arrays.
Lan parties are, in a lot of ways, hindered by bandwidth. We have a monthly thing in town here that is pushing the limits of the 100mb switches and GE backbone.
Watching multiple streams of HDTV video from the media server in your basement.
Networking processors from different workstations to provide a little more processing power.

And most importantly.

Haptic porn.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807549)

You'd probably not do a thing. But I know the internal network lines at my Uni (left this summer) are glowing pushing 1Gbit, the main backbone is now 10Gbit I think. And keeping the internal network fast (not to mention, look the other way) keeps the external connection from getting squished. If 10Tbit is available in 2010, they'll probably go for something like that. It doesn't take many student's homes to create huge amounts of traffic...

Kjella

Am I going to be the first to say it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807609)

And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet?

Pr0n. Lots of pr0n.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807691)

With a 10TB connection, you only need to save your documents. (And why not do that over a network.) Software as a service is pretty viable with that kind of bandwidth.

Re:And what am I going to do with 10TB ethernet? (1)

Sepper (524857) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807718)

We already have the technology for something that writes that fast [astrian.net] . Problem is, you can't read from it...

Psychic (-1, Offtopic)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807391)

All of a sudden I felt this urge to stop coding and reload slashdot. Lo and behold a new article appears! And I have a new message too!

Obligatory Use: (-1, Offtopic)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807395)

pr0n

By that time.... (-1)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807404)

The SCO fee will probably be $2000/year. Once you pay it, you will be able to download all the porn in the universe in less than a second. Good Day, you cock-smoking teabaggers.

For the Mac? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807708)

Shouldn't this have been posted on one of the Apple stories?
I mean Linux guys are fags, but they are no where near the 'cock-smoking teabaggers' that gay Mac zealots are...

What about latency? (5, Insightful)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807405)

Bandwidth is good, but what about latency? Ethernet has traditionally suffered from high latencies and doesn't work very well for High-Performance-Computing-Clusters. Myrinet and other ridiculously overpriced networking hardware works much better for clustering. I wish terabit ethernet does something about ethernet latency so that efficient clustering becomes a little cheaper.

Re:What about latency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807596)

What about it? At 10Tbps, would it matter much? How does 100ms latency affect a 10Mbps Ethernet network versus how it would affect a 10Tbps network?

Answer: When you take into account both latency and bandwidth you arrive at your actual speed or throughput. A 10Tbps network will not be nearly as affected as a 10Mbps network. Ping some FTP server on a 10Mbps wide-area network, you may get 100ms latency (just go with me on this). Ping the same server, this time replacing the wide-area network with 10Tbps. If you get the same 100ms latency what does that actually mean? Now download a 1GB file using each network. Which one was faster? The 10Tbps network was faster because it has more throughput (latency and bandwidth).

Re:What about latency? (4, Interesting)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807671)

100 ms latency would affect a 10Mbps network and a 10 Tbps network almost equally if a clustered application is using very small packets to communicate. Only if the application is using very large packets, the bandwidth will overcome the latency. At small packet sizes the latency will largely overshadow the bandwidth. And considering that a lot of scientific applications use small payloads, latency is very important. If ethernet wants acceptance in the High-Performance-Computing-Clusters world, something has to be done about the latency.

Re:What about latency? (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807680)

Now take the same server, and instead of transfering a 1GB file, send a 4k message for a DSM page update, or a filesystem locking operation (4k is generous). Which network is effectively faster then? Transferring large files is far from the only use of networks. Latency *is* important, and ethernet latencies have not gotten the exponential speed boosts that the bandwidth has.

Clustering and LAN file servers are two common uses for networks that won't benifit much by increasing bandwidth beyond 2gbps compared to how much they would benefit from lower latencies.

Re:What about latency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807709)

Good point. I was not thinking in that way.

Re:What about latency? (2, Informative)

joib (70841) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807705)

Uh oh, guess how myrinet, quadrics and scali achieve their indeed impressively low latency? By having special user-space MPI libraries that access the hardware directly, without the kernel. And of course, they dont use the IP protocol, but some proprietary protocol designed specifically for cluster use (as simple as possible e.g. no routing)

So, unfortunately the technology used for cluster interconnects is totally non-general purpose. Actually it's more or less useless unless you have a MPI application.

Salad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807410)

What is that article actually supposed to be about? Seems like a scrambled mess of acronymic buzzwords with no actual content to me.

Re:Salad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807711)

Beyond the terrible writing, anyone making an IT prediction seven years into the future should probably look at the IT past. It's not a smooth curve you can extrapolate (indeed nothing is, else there'd be no point in living).

Either that or the conspiracy theorists are much smarter than they seem.

boy! If you could build a Beowolf Cluster of these (-1, Offtopic)

tloh (451585) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807415)

I'm sorry. I just couldn't resist! ^_^

Re:boy! If you could build a Beowolf Cluster of th (3, Interesting)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807514)

Interestingly enough, if you did it wouldn't be a very big success because the internal PCI or PCI-X bus in the system would bottleneck the interconnects. The NICs would need on-board processors to scale with their enormous bandwidth potential so that they could solve problems like matching checksums and other package management tasks and not have to pound on the system bus so hard.

It wasn't long ago that we really started exploiting video chipsets for rendering graphics, either...

Whassup? (-1, Offtopic)

gregarican (694358) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807416)

Where's my daily fix of Micro$loth and SCO bashing? Starting to get the jones...

LAN or Internet? (3, Insightful)

blixel (158224) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807422)

The article is already slashdotted so I can't read it. So what is it refering to? 10Tb LAN speeds? If so - who cares? My existing 100Mb (200Mb switched full duplex) LAN is hardly the weakest link.

Re:LAN or Internet? (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807457)

who cares?

How about those interested in clustering and not interested in paying for expensive solutions (that now exist because of high latency in ethernet)?

How about those that are interested in having a network other than their home network where 100 or 1000Mb is just not enough?

The home market isn't the ONLY market available for networking you know. Especially with FL thinking about taxing it ;)

Re:LAN or Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807558)

How about those that are interested in having a network other than their home network where 100 or 1000Mb is just not enough?

Don't you think "those" are the exception and not the rule? In our company, I'd much rather have an affordable 10Mb up/down Internet connection than a 10Tb LAN.

Re:LAN or Internet? (2, Interesting)

El_Ge_Ex (218107) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807468)

The article is already slashdotted so I can't read it.

At those speeds, does the /. effect still exist? Is it the server that becomes the sole limiting factor?

-B

100Mb full duplex, switched to the desktop. (1)

Population (687281) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807492)

The only time I see utilization above 10% is when I'm backing up systems across the wire.

This might be good for SAN's. But I'd be looking at iSCSI for that.

We haven't even deployed gigabit Ethernet yet.

I shudder to think of the size of the files that will need that much bandwidth for decent performance.

Re:100Mb full duplex, switched to the desktop. (1)

Misch (158807) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807627)

You may shudder... I just think of pr0n.

Re:100Mb full duplex, switched to the desktop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807720)

You will find that when you deploy gigabit Ethernet, you will have trouble driving the utilization much higher when using typical network filesystem protocols in use today.
Even gigabit Ethernet is a waste when there are only a couple of machines communicating, and the network is used for filesystem access.
Unclear what use a faster network will be until some fundamental changes have been made in the protocols...

Google cache (1)

OneIsNotPrime (609963) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807497)

is here [216.239.51.104]

Got to LOVE the irony. (1)

jabber01 (225154) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807511)

Well, it *is* ironic!

Reasonable Limits Aren't (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807631)

When you're wiring up your home so that you can have high-quality, practically uncompressed high definition video coming from a central video server such that every room can be watching a different stream simultaneously, while some may be actively editing data and rerendering, you're going to want the fastest, fattest pipe you can get.

And who knows what bandwidth-hungry LAN application you're going to want to do in the future. Have you any idea how long it takes to render a cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot in spacetime over a 100 Mbit/sec connection? I can tell you one thing: it's not going to be hot.

More bandwidth than you'll ever need is always better than not enough. Especially when you aren't leasing it from an outside party!

Article Text (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807424)

10 Terabit Ethernet: from 10 Gigabit Ethernet, to 100 Gigabit Ethernet, to 1 Terabit Ethernet
By: Steve Gilheany
(Aug 27, 2003)

Ethernet Timeline

* 10 Megabit Ethernet 1990*
* 100 Megabit Ethernet 1995
* 1 Gigabit Ethernet 1998
* 10 Gigabit Ethernet 2002
* 100 Gigabit Ethernet 2006**
* 1 Terabit Ethernet 2008**
* 10 Terabit Ethernet 2010**

* Invented 1976, 10BaseT 1990
** projected

Every kind of networking is coming together: LANs (Local Area Networks), SANs (Storage / System Area Networks), telephony, cable TV, inter-city optical fiber links, etc., but if you don't call it Ethernet you cannot sell it. Your networking must also include a reference to IP (Internet Protocol) to be marketable.

Above 10 Gigabit Ethernet lies 100 Gigabit Ethernet. The fastest commercial bit rate on a fiber transmitter/receiver pair is 80 Gigabits per second. Each Ethernet speed increase must be an order of magnitude (a factor of 10) to be worth the effort to incorporate a change, and 100 Gigabit Ethernet has not been commercially possible with a simple bit multiplexing solution, but NTT has solved this problem and has the first 100 Gigabit per second chip to begin a 10 Gigabit system [http://www.ntt.co.jp/news/news02e/0212/021204.htm l]. Currently, Nortel Networks offers DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing) where 160 of the 40 Gigabit transmitter/receiver pairs are used to transmit 160 wavelengths (infrared colors) on the same fiber yielding a composite, multi-channel, bandwidth of 6.4 terabits per second. Because it is now impossible to sell networking unless it is called Ethernet (regardless of the actual protocols used), it is likely that 1 Terabit Ethernet and even 10 Terabit Ethernet (using 100 wavelengths used by 100 gigabit per second transmitter / receiver pairs) may soon be announced. Only a protocol name change is needed. And the name change is merely the acknowledgment that Ethernet protocols can tunnel through other protocols (such as DWDM) (and vice versa). In fact, Atrica has been advertising such a multiplexed version of 100 Gigabit Ethernet since 2001. [http://www.atrica.com/products/a_8000.html] Now that NTT has announced a reliable 100 Gigabit per second transmitter/receiver pair, the progression may be 1 wavelength for 100 Gigabit Ethernet, 10 wavelength (10 x 100 Gigabits per second) CWDM (Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing) for 1 Terabit Ethernet, and 100 wavelength (100 x 100 Gigabits per second) DWDM for 10 Terabit per second Ethernet in the near future.

iSCSI (Internet SCSI) over Ethernet is replacing: *SCSI (Small Computer Systems Interface, in 1979 it was Shugart Associates Systems Interface: *SASI), *FC (Fibre Channel), and even *ATA (IBM PC AT Attachment) aka (also known as) *IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics) *see [http://www.pcguide.com], Ethernet is replacing ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode), Sonet (Synchronous Optical NETwork), POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service, which is being replaced with Gigabit Ethernet to the home in Grant County, Washington, USA ) [see references from Cisco Systems 1, 2, 3, or 4] [www.wwp.com], *PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect local bus), Infiniband, and every other protocol, because, as described above, if you don't call it Ethernet you cannot sell it. Everything, in every type of, communications must now also include a reference to IP (Internet Protocol) for the same reason.

At the same time that the transmitter / receiver pairs are getting faster, and DWMD is adding channels, the capacity of fibers is increasing, as is the transmission distance available without repeaters. Omni-Guide [http://www.omni-guide.com/; then click on enter] is working on fibers that "could substantially reduce or even eliminate the need for amplifiers in optical networks. Secondly it will offer a bandwidth capacity that could potentially be several orders of magnitude greater than conventional single-mode optical fibers." Eliminating amplifiers greatly reduces the cost of cables (and reduces maintenance costs when the cables are under the ocean). If today's cables can carry 10 Gigabits per second easily and 100 Gigabits to about 10 terabits per second with DWDM, then "a bandwidth capacity that could potentially be several orders of magnitude greater" (also from Omni-Guide) means fiber optic transmission rates from 100 Gigabits per second to 1 Petabit per second (1 Petabit per second is 10**15 bits per second and is 10**5 times the speed of a 10 Gigabit link and 10**3 times the speed of a 1 Terabit link). The 1.3 micron wavelength used in communications has a frequency of about 230 TeraHertz. At one bit per baud (transition through zero, eponymous for Emile Baudot) this would support a theoretical maximum data rate of 230 Terabits per second. At 8 bits per baud (256 detectable light levels) (256 = 2**8) this would be 1.84 Petabits per second. And, a 56 kilobit per second modem achieves over 16 bits per baud on a 3 kilohertz voice grade line.

Reference:
From the document management continuum at http://www.ArchiveBuilders.com/whitepapers; used in a 3 day course in document management and document imaging -- http://www.ArchiveBuilders.com/abcourses.html

Re:Article Text (1)

soulsteal (104635) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807729)

Additional mirror here [3l337.org] .

Name Change (3, Funny)

Nept (21497) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807428)

Tethernet?

Re:Name Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807477)

how about tetherball??!

iSCSI???!?? Firewire? (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807433)

Meh, the article already appears to be slashdotted, but from a first read I have to wonder if I am missing something here with iSCSI. Is not this simply a different protocol that Firewire already takes care of, especially with faster iterations? Firewire is already a subset of SCSI, but hot plug and play and you can also TCP/IP over Firewire.

Re:iSCSI???!?? Firewire? (5, Informative)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807493)

iSCSI bascially takes native SCSI commands, wraps it up (encapsulates it), and sends it over the wire. In other words, you could use a SCSI scanner over a network without having to resort to PC Anywhere or something.

Re:iSCSI???!?? Firewire? (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807556)

iSCSI bascially takes native SCSI commands, wraps it up (encapsulates it), and sends it over the wire. In other words, you could use a SCSI scanner over a network without having to resort to PC Anywhere or something.

I believe the same concept is possible with Firewire. In fact, the Firewire protocol allows for use completely independently of any computer or CPU.

Re:iSCSI???!?? Firewire? (1)

isoga (670113) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807660)

Great if you have very long arms to reach the scanner from your desk.

Re:iSCSI???!?? Firewire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807740)

mao che minh bascially takes common sense and widely known information, wraps it up (rewords it), and reposts it for karma whoring. In other words, you could use a mao che minh scanner over a network to find plenty of worthless posts modded to +5.

We already have gigabit... (2, Insightful)

tambo (310170) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807442)

Pretty cool for LANs, but otherwise rather useless.

We already have gigabit Ethernet - which (even rounding down somewhat to account for checksum and overhead and such) should be capable of transferring around 100 megabytes of data per second. How many of us have ever seen even 10% of this in practice for a general Internet connection? I'm lucky if I can pull one megabyte per second from an Internet site that doesn't happen to be, y'know, next door.

- David Stein

Re:We already have gigabit... (2, Informative)

luckyguesser (699385) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807567)

I agree that it is rather useless. For instance, consider hard drive speeds. I did a little searching and found that the fastest hard drive on the planet ( http://radified.com/Benches/hdtach_x15_36lp_wme.ht m ) has an average speeds of 420Mbps.

So, it seems to me that for massive data transfer, we should be worrying more about the beginning and end of the line rather than the middle.

Not that I think improving network transfer speeds is bad...

The all important use... (2, Funny)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807447)

Imagine how much pr0n....er....um...I mean valuable business data you could get with this!

Speed! (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807452)

And only today I was in complete awe when I was able to download stuff using a 1 Gbps line...

Not just a name change (4, Funny)

mnmn (145599) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807465)

Gigabit ethernet, and 10 gigabit ethernet both have it in their specs to accomodate 100 ethernet and 10 ethernet. Therefore 10 Tb ethernet will be called 10000000/1000000/100000/10000/1000/100/10Base T for the OTHER technologies included. The chip will be bigger unless its fancy FPGAing with the FPGA code downloaded from the driver.

So to sell it as Ethernet they have to make it compatible as such. Or to make things cheaper, they will have to settle on a different name to sell cheaper 10Tb cards only. Cheaper 10Tb cards will sell more than compatible ones.

Re:Not just a name change (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807489)

10 Tb ethernet will be called 10000000/1000000/100000/10000/1000/100/10Base T

Uh... no.

If the engineers are allowed to decide, I'll predict that the names will be like 10^9BaseT. Saves space and the superscripts look cool to the public.

Re:Not just a name change (1)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807542)

Wait a second... does that mean I'm not going to be seeing a 10Tb/sec on my Token Ring LAN?

Re:Not just a name change (1)

blixel (158224) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807618)

Therefore 10 Tb ethernet will be called 10000000/1000000/100000/10000/1000/100/10Base

Just call it E.Everything

Disks cant keep up (-1, Redundant)

Yag (537766) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807496)

Cpu grows following moore law, memory become cheaper and faster, video cards and busses are fast enaugh. But there are still 2 problems: - DISKS ARE SLOW! DAMN SLOW! TOO SLOW! If we dont find a viable alternative 10TB ethernet will be unusable. - BATTERIES SUCKS! We need a more stable, longlasting way of providing mobile energy. If we still have bottlenecks like these there won't be any real advantage by this stuff.

Re:Disks cant keep up (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807625)

250 and 300GB SATA disks are already pushing sustained over 50 mbytes/sec, at 7200 rpm. That's enough to max out most gigabit cards, except for the higher end ones.

As long as the aerial density keep increasing, we will see slow but steady increases in speed too.

If anything, networking has been the stagnant factor lately. Gigabit over copper has been out for years now, and the hardware for it is still overpriced, and mostly made by a few manufacturers.

Text (0, Redundant)

OneIsNotPrime (609963) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807517)

10 Terabit Ethernet: from 10 Gigabit Ethernet, to 100 Gigabit Ethernet, to 1 Terabit Ethernet
By: Steve Gilheany
(May 28, 2003)

Ethernet Timeline

* 10 Megabit Ethernet 1990*
* 100 Megabit Ethernet 1995
* 1 Gigabit Ethernet 1998
* 10 Gigabit Ethernet 2002
* 100 Gigabit Ethernet 2006**
* 1 Terabit Ethernet 2008**
* 10 Terabit Ethernet 2010**

* Invented 1976, 10BaseT 1990
** projected

Every kind of networking is coming together: LANs (Local Area Networks), SANs (Storage / System Area Networks), telephony, cable TV, inter-city optical fiber links, etc., but if you don't call it Ethernet you cannot sell it. Your networking must also include a reference to IP (Internet Protocol) to be marketable.

Above 10 Gigabit Ethernet lies 100 Gigabit Ethernet. The fastest commercial bit rate on a fiber transmitter/receiver pair is 80 Gigabits per second. Each Ethernet speed increase must be an order of magnitude (a factor of 10) to be worth the effort to incorporate a change, and 100 Gigabit Ethernet has not been commercially possible with a simple bit multiplexing solution, but NTT has solved this problem and has the first 100 Gigabit per second chip to begin a 10 Gigabit system [http://www.ntt.co.jp/news/news02e/0212/021204.htm l]. Currently, Nortel Networks offers DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing) where 160 of the 40 Gigabit transmitter/receiver pairs are used to transmit 160 wavelengths (infrared colors) on the same fiber yielding a composite, multi-channel, bandwidth of 6.4 terabits per second. Because it is now impossible to sell networking unless it is called Ethernet (regardless of the actual protocols used), it is likely that 1 Terabit Ethernet and even 10 Terabit Ethernet (using 100 wavelengths used by 100 gigabit per second transmitter / receiver pairs) may soon be announced. Only a protocol name change is needed. And the name change is merely the acknowledgment that Ethernet protocols can tunnel through other protocols (such as DWDM) (and vice versa). In fact, Atrica has been advertising such a multiplexed version of 100 Gigabit Ethernet since 2001. [http://www.atrica.com/products/a_8000.html] Now that NTT has announced a reliable 100 Gigabit per second transmitter/receiver pair, the progression may be 1 wavelength for 100 Gigabit Ethernet, 10 wavelength (10 x 100 Gigabits per second) CWDM (Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing) for 1 Terabit Ethernet, and 100 wavelength (100 x 100 Gigabits per second) DWDM for 10 Terabit per second Ethernet in the near future.

iSCSI (Internet SCSI) over Ethernet is replacing: *SCSI (Small Computer Systems Interface, in 1979 it was Shugart Associates Systems Interface: *SASI), *FC (Fibre Channel), and even *ATA (IBM PC AT Attachment) aka (also known as) *IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics) *see [http://www.pcguide.com], Ethernet is replacing ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode), Sonet (Synchronous Optical NETwork), POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service, which is being replaced with Gigabit Ethernet to the home in Grant County, Washington, USA ) [see references from Cisco Systems 1, 2, 3, or 4] [www.wwp.com], *PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect local bus), Infiniband, and every other protocol, because, as described above, if you don't call it Ethernet you cannot sell it. Everything, in every type of, communications must now also include a reference to IP (Internet Protocol) for the same reason.

At the same time that the transmitter / receiver pairs are getting faster, and DWMD is adding channels, the capacity of fibers is increasing, as is the transmission distance available without repeaters. Omni-Guide [http://www.omni-guide.com/; then click on enter] is working on fibers that "could substantially reduce or even eliminate the need for amplifiers in optical networks. Secondly it will offer a bandwidth capacity that could potentially be several orders of magnitude greater than conventional single-mode optical fibers." Eliminating amplifiers greatly reduces the cost of cables (and reduces maintenance costs when the cables are under the ocean). If today's cables can carry 10 Gigabits per second easily and 100 Gigabits to about 10 terabits per second with DWDM, then "a bandwidth capacity that could potentially be several orders of magnitude greater" (also from Omni-Guide) means fiber optic transmission rates from 100 Gigabits per second to 1 Petabit per second (1 Petabit per second is 10**15 bits per second and is 10**5 times the speed of a 10 Gigabit link and 10**3 times the speed of a 1 Terabit link). The 1.3 micron wavelength used in communications has a frequency of about 230 TeraHertz. At one bit per baud (transition through zero, eponymous for Emile Baudot) this would support a theoretical maximum data rate of 230 Terabits per second. At 8 bits per baud (256 detectable light levels) (256 = 2**8) this would be 1.84 Petabits per second. And, a 56 kilobit per second modem achieves over 16 bits per baud on a 3 kilohertz voice grade line.

Reference:
From the document management continuum at http://www.ArchiveBuilders.com/whitepapers; used in a 3 day course in document management and document imaging -- http://www.ArchiveBuilders.com/abcourses.html

Re:Text (0)

PrImED73 (695394) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807700)

how the hell did that only get 1 point???

In the year 2010... (2, Funny)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807523)

My prediction for the year 2010... I'll still be on a 56k modem. :-(

Will 10 Terabits be enough... (4, Funny)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807547)

...to prevent the Slashdot Effect?

Uses of high speed links (4, Informative)

cybergibbons (554352) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807553)

These high speed DWDM systems talked about in this article aren't designed to be used for LANs or home internet connections - they are meant for high speed backbones that span huge distances (such as across the US or Australia).

They carry mutiple 10Gb/s or 40Gb/s channels on one fibre pair - and these individual channels can be added or removed as necessary, and can be treated independantly. Saying this, 10Gb/s is still a lot, and generally that needs to be broken down into more managable sections, such as gigabit copper ethernet or maybe even 100Mb/s.

It may seem like overkill, but at the core of most networks, there is a distinct lack of bandwidth. Maybe the VOD and video calling predicted 10 years back won't happen on these networks, but more applications are requiring these huge amounts of bandwidth.

An example of this sort of system being rolled out is the Marconi Solstis system in Australia [fibre-systems.com] . A very small part of that system was designed by me :)

When will it just DIE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807562)

WOOO terabit ethernet..

whoopdedoo..

nevermind that a ATM OC-48 link will still push more raw bandwidth..

ethernet.. pfft... it's a hack to even put QOS on it.. MPLS and crap.. who needs it..

Personally i'd like gigabit tokenring.. but much like the VHS/BETAMAX debate.. token ring was passed up for crappier technology..

Just think of the collisions from geeks with terabit ethernet connected to their crappy 128K DSL link trying to download the latest LOTR trailer.

Ethernet.. when will it just die and go away.. there is so much better technology.

packetengines (3, Interesting)

joeldg (518249) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807566)

I am sure packetengines (http://www.scyld.com/network/yellowfin.html) is all over this.
These guys had gigabit routers four years ago when I was helping to set up the AFN (ashlandfiber.com)

Cool to see.. mo'faster is mo'betta

it's funny... (4, Funny)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807572)

I am an EE major and when I was going to university in the late 80s early 90s everybody was going on how fiber was the future and that we'd run out of capacity on copper RealSoonNow: who'd have thought about 10TERABIT ethernet back then! (heck, I was happy as a clam when my lab upgraded from coax to baseT so the jokers couldn't bring down my box by unscrewing their terminators...)

who needs it it right now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807595)

that magazine needs it right now...already slashdotted.

Who needs this? Answer... (5, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807597)

Lucent was selling their all-optical DWDM switches (Lambda Series) last year. The LambdaXtreme is a 40 Gbps DWDM unit that uses micro-mirrors (MEMS) for switching. Data is not converted to electricity, but stays as photons the entire route. It is capable of sending data through optical fibers for 1,000 KM *without regeneration* and at 4,000 KM *without regeneration* at reduced (10 Gbps) speeds.

They sold a pair of units (and you have to buy at least 2 or they are useless) to Time-Warner. There is one on the East Coast and one on the West and it forms a major part of their cross-country backbone.

8-10 of the units were sold to Korea (South) for use in wiring up their national rail systems. I also believe NTT DoCoMo (Japan) bought a couple.

This is all last year. Since I'm no longer with that company (layoffs), I no longer get all the product updates. These units were in my product group for install, service and support.

Widespread TerraBit (1)

quartzzk (702085) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807598)

Maybe it can be used by groups of Terra card readers all at once! Yeah uhh ..

On a real note, this could bring about a huge change in Wide Area Multi Processing(WAMP) - such as several large companies do now, have one master and a bunch of slave machines that all respond to the tasks given to them, (a big Beuowolf) write speeds on storage might not be up to speed, but given directly to precessors on other machines, and Whola! One really big super computer, or one big network ... a neural network one day, and skylab the next :)

Holla

so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807599)

10TB by 2003+rand()%20;
20TB by 2020+rand()%40;

but really, who cares?

Yes, woho, 20THZ prosessors in 2030! I can hardly wait!

Hmmm.... (1)

MasterSLATE (638125) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807605)

Think of how fast you could download porn...

My harddrive would fill faster then it does now.

I'll bet you all ... (2, Funny)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807622)

that even then, Kevin Tolley will still be ranting away in the pages of Network World about how much better Token Ring really is...

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Ethernet? (1)

LamerX (164968) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807630)

Well, I think that the reason that things can't be sold without the ethernet label on it has got to be because of the increase in the popularity of networking.

Go driving around a neighborhood with Kismet and you'll see what I mean. There are tons of people with Wireless networks in thier homes. Now every Joe user in the world can set up thier own network in thier home. Now, Joe doesn't know the difference between ethernet and cat5. But what is the main thing that he sees on all of his packaging? ETHERNET. ETHERNET is printed all over boxes and labels, and so Joe assumes that all networking is just called ethernet. Once you get this term being thrown around, everyone calling everything ethernet, who wants to be the know-it-all explaining protocols and going off with technical babble that he wont get anyways?

Has be called Ethernet? (1)

netringer (319831) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807642)

Because it is now impossible to sell networking unless it is called Ethernet...
I see. So that's why all of those public access points are springing up with wireless Ethernet access points.

Re:Has be called Ethernet? (1)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807722)

I see. So that's why all of those public access points are springing up with wireless
Ethernet access points.
Was this intended to be sarcastic? I hear 802.11x referred to as "Wireless Ethernet" all the time.

Actually, to me, Ethernet = "contention-based, shared-medium compupter network." In which case, 802.11x is very properly called Ethernet. Switched 100bT, on the other hand...

GATTACA (0, Offtopic)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807648)

Forget MS Passpost, you must now send your complete Genome to login to Hotmail. Just stick your finger on the MS Gene-o-matic to login and check your email. Special Delivery packages will still require a neck scraping.

3 WORDS... Ethernet Based Motherboards (1)

enigmals1 (667526) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807661)

That's the next step in fast bus speeds over copper. ;) Look it up on Google.

Cabling? (1)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807664)

Ok, so here's my situation.

Just bought a house. Got a sweet deal with the builder where I sign a waiver (if you kill yourself it's not our fault), and I'm able to go in and put network cable in the walls. This will probably happen in a month or so (they just poured the foundation two weeks ago).

I was seriously going to go in there and put 2-4 Cat5e ports in each room, and I've already bought a 1000ft spool of the stuff for the occasion. Unfortunately due to building codes (so they say), they will not allow me to run conduits, so whatever I put in will have to do.

Will this make my copper cable obsolete? What can I do to future-proof this installation?

And no, I don't have the money to deal with fibre, nor the necessary tools or patience. But I suppose in the future the air return ducts or the central vac tubes might come in handy.

Impossible? (1)

topquark46 (86652) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807667)

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Rubbish Ariticle (0, Troll)

isoga (670113) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807681)

Article has far too many (uneccessary) parentheses (brackets) makes random claims (must be called Ethernet) than doesnt back any of its claims up. It's not even (slightly) interesting (but at least it wasnt an advert)

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6807702)

ethernet names you!

-1 Redundant (1)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807706)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of nodes connected by this!

Durability of Ethernet (5, Funny)

Sir Rhosys (84459) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807726)

Just read this in ESR's Art of Unix Programming [catb.org] and thought it was applicable:
"Robert Metcalf [the inventor of Ethernet] says that if something comes along to replace Ethernet, it will be called "Ethernet", so therefore Ethernet will never die. Unix has already undergone several such transformations."


-- Ken Thompson
Here is the page in the manuscript with the quote [catb.org] .

My apologies for both the recursive quoting and name dropping.

Attn Geeks: This is not for your desktop (5, Informative)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 10 years ago | (#6807731)

I'll stop trolling here after I get this out: stop thinking this has anything to do with your top-of-the-line, supergeekin' Athlon.

This technology is namely meant for backbones, be it on a campus level or as a longer haul backbone. Obviously, your desktop will not need to transfer anywhere near that much data within the next, say, 25 years. If you were using your head while you were reading the (albiet poorly written) article, I wouldn't have to troll. :(

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...