Beta
×

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!

NetBSD Sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the showoffs dept.

The Internet 336

Daniel de Kok writes "Researchers of the Swedish University Network (SUNET) have beaten the Internet2 Land Speed Record using two Dell 2650 machines with single 2GHz CPUs running NetBSD 2.0 Beta. SUNET has transferred around 840 GigaBytes of data in less than 30 minutes, using a single IPv4 TCP stream, between a host at the Luleå University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA. The achieved speed was 69.073 Petabit-meters/second. According to the research team, NetBSD was chosen 'due to the scalability of the TCP code.'"

"More information about this record including the NetBSD configuration can be found at: http://proj.sunet.se/LSR2/
The website of the Internet2 Land Speed Record (I2-LSR) competition is located at: http://lsr.internet2.edu/"

cancel ×

336 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046419)

i rule

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046600)

YOU ACHIEVE IT!

That's one fast corpse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046420)

Correct me if I'm wrong... (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046423)

...but don't the three main BSD projects use pretty much the same TCP/IP stack?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

AhBeeDoi (686955) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046527)

Perhaps, the alternatives were not just within BSD projects, but among Linux, Windows, OSX, etc.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046553)

ok... wait a second....

Are you saying there's something else other than the BSD's??

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046689)

Yep, there's actually LIFE out there.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

RealityThreek (534082) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046567)

Alot of other OSes supposedly are based on BSD's tcp/ip stack as well. I think Windows is one of them. Yay for free code.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046640)

True. However, the various stacks have diversified a lot since the original BSD 4.4 stack. As a result, many of the TCP/IP stacks have different performance characteristics and features. AFAIK, the three main BSDs have kept their stacks in sync because they've been sharing code. A stack from NetBSD should be almost the same as a stack from FreeBSD.

That'll learn em. (4, Funny)

Maradine (194191) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046427)

Fools, BSD is dea . . . oh, wait, what?

Re:That'll learn em. (4, Funny)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046611)

No, but at that speed they sure must've been rushing it to the hospital!

Cue pr0n jokes (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046434)

GO!!!!

Re:Cue pr0n jokes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046494)

And the data transfered? Necrophillia porn.

Re:Cue pr0n jokes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046496)

What have a girlfriend and a condom got in common?

They spend more time in your wallet than on your dick.

so close (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046435)

I was so close to fp...

No matter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046442)

They will still get slashdotted.

You posted this last week. (-1, Offtopic)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046445)

Thanks for listening.

1MB? (1)

cibressus (690448) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046447)

how about we get 1MBS real downloadspeed in everyones home before we go shooting porn to reach ISP owners at the speed of light.

Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046454)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of graveyards.

BSD? (0, Redundant)

p00p at instable.net (773687) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046455)

I thought that stuff was dead.

But What About SMP and the Threaded TCP Stack? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046460)


Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:

Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."

Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.

Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."

Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.

Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled .005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.

Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.

Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)

Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."

With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.

Wow! Two Boxes, and one CPU. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046464)

How does that work?

hi. my name is amanda (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046468)

hello. im new to this website. anyway - give me a call:

+447743552957

Question... (5, Funny)

8tim8 (623968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046470)

SUNET has transferred around 840 GigaBytes of data in less than 30 minutes

Does this mean we've broken the "station wagon loaded with DVD's" barrier yet?

Re:Question... (5, Funny)

AhBeeDoi (686955) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046502)

Does this mean we've broken the "station wagon loaded with DVD's" barrier yet?
Not quite. However, we're appproching the Mini-Cooper barrier.

Re:Question... (5, Funny)

PacoTaco (577292) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046657)

My Netflix subscription works out to about 60 KB/s.

Re:Question... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046763)

OMG!!! WFT?? im n00b too . perhaps we shud meet ;my AOL is "CoolN00by256389228793269".

also, my MSN is "CoolN00by3654" and my ICQ is "CoolN00by569477".

Re:Question... (2, Funny)

MrRuslan (767128) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046698)

Imagine that...and less than a month ago a homming pigion was top of the line...

Re:Question... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046709)

Hmmm ... not [lycos.co.uk] quite.

CC.

Can we get a Uhaul trailer? (4, Interesting)

raehl (609729) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046668)

That depends on whether the DVDs are in cases or not I think.

At 9.4 GB per DVD (Assume single-layer double-sided DVD-R), and a travel time of 3 weeks from Sweeden to California (2 weeks on the boat, one week of driving), you'd need to get about 90,000 DVDs in your station wagon to get an effective 1680 GB/hr. That wouldn't be possible if they were in cases, but if it was just the DVDs, it's probably a close call. Might have to upgrade to dual-layer DVD's, or change the saying to "an SUV full of DVD's".

On the other hand, if you count the time to actually read the data off of the DVDs (even worse if you count the time to put the data on the DVDs too), the station wagon of DVD's barrier was broken long ago - you probably couldn't spin a DVD fast enough to get 9.4 GB of data off it in 20 seconds.

Re:Can we get a Uhaul trailer? (0)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046728)

What if I pull a UHaul trailer of DVDs and get an airlift from the handy neighborhood C-5 Galaxy [wikipedia.org] ? The military has to have one or two of those hanging around Sweden somewhere. :-)

Re:Can we get a Uhaul trailer? (5, Funny)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046752)

Ok, time to toss a few 250GB harddrives into an SR-71 flying at Mach 3. We cannot be outdone by mere information over wires!

WOOHOO ! (3, Funny)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046473)

We can now DoS sites at even faster speed !

Anyone else (1)

jacobhoupt (728382) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046476)

cleaning their pants out? I'm also dusting off the old BSDemon shirt.

Huh? (2, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046482)

What is a petabit-meter? How is it a significant measure of transmission speed?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046526)

it's sort of like a gigabit-mile/hour, but faster

personally, I don't see distance in a bandwidth measurement very often

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046547)

What is a petabit-meter?

Think of it like 3 meters per acregallon of footyards/second divided by hectares per ohm.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046747)

My operating system gets forty petabytes to the nanometer and that's the ways I likes it!

Well, not having RTFA... (1, Interesting)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046552)

My guess is that it's petabits times meters (as in physical distance between the machines). Which seems kind of stupid -- if the distance makes any real difference, something is wrong. How about communicating with Voyager II -- then you could get some real numbers, even at modem speeds!

Plus, I'm betting it's not a "land" speed record, seeing as how the data probably jumps through the air (satillite/microwave transmissions) at one or more points. (Not to mention the fact that being on, over, or under the surface of land or water means nothing to a data cable.)

Re:Well, not having RTFA... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046684)

I'm betting it's not a "land" speed record, seeing as how the data probably jumps through the air (satillite/microwave transmissions) at one or more points.

Nope. The vast majority of phone & data runs over fiber, without satellite or microwave. The latency on satellite is much worse, & microwave is more expensive. Fiber is the first choice.

(Not to mention the fact that being on, over, or under the surface of land or water means nothing to a data cable.)

Well, back when I worked for JDS Uniphase during the tech boom, there was a world of difference. Getting parts qualified for underwater cables was much harder. The cable owners don't want to have to send out a ship to pull a cable up off the ocean floor to fix it - it's very very expensive.

JDS had to guarrantee that they would make no changes in its production process without the approval of the customer, and JDS had to get similar guarrantees from its suppliers. Of course, JDS charged a lot more for undersea components, but reliability was much more important than cost.

And many customers would demand that the parts be made in North America - they wouldn't accept made in China or Taiwan.

Sigh. I miss working at JDS.

Re:Well, not having RTFA... (2, Interesting)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046736)

...if the distance makes any real difference, something is wrong.

One of the biggest problems in networking is handling a large bandwidth-delay product (that's the amount of data in flight at once). Since distance increases the delay it is relevant.

Plus, I'm betting it's not a "land" speed record, seeing as how the data probably jumps through the air (satillite/microwave transmissions) at one or more points.

Nope. Think about it: what kind of wireless connection can handle 4 Gbps?

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046574)

It's a measure of transport capacity.

"Analogous to man-miles/year considered by airlines"

And like the anonymous comment above mine, also analogous to gigabit-miles/hour.

A search of bit-meters [google.com] gives you some references, however helpful they actually may be.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

jcuervo (715139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046593)

What is a petabit-meter? How is it a significant measure of transmission speed?
Presumably, it's the time it takes to transfer a petabit of information over one metre.

Re:Huh? (0, Offtopic)

vthokiestm (691839) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046645)

Damn those tree-huggers, taking over anything. Has anyone else seen that big Richard Pryor PETA billboard on Second Ave in New York...and now this? What does information transfer have to do with animal ethics? ;)

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

Dodger73 (654030) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046717)

What is a petabit-meter? How is it a significant measure of transmission speed?

I'd think a petabit-meter is the transfer of one petabit of data over a distance of 1m. That's significant, because transfer takes longer (and is less reliable) over a greater distance. Think switching times, packet routing and other latencies, and of course the short time the signal needs to travel halfway around the globe.
In other words, transferring 1 pb over 1 meter in one second is considered the same 'achievement' as 0.5 pb over 2m in one second (0.5 pb * 2m = 1pbm/s).
However, I think this form of measurement is not entirely correct for short distance, because where you might see a noticeable difference in transfer rates between transferring data over half a mile (e.g. from your ISP to you) and transferring it halfway around the globe, you won't notice much of a difference caused by above mentioned latencies between 1m and 2m distances.

What I mean to say is, I don't think that the latencies that are meant to be taken into account by using bm/s actually scale linearly (signal travel time does, but not the other factors) - it's more likely that they only matter at large distances (or when comparing transfer speeds at large differences in distance).

Where 1 pb transferred over 6000 miles in one second might be the same 'achievement' as 2pb transferred over 3000 miles in one second, that doesn't hold true for short distances. 1pb over 1m in one second seems to be a higher transfer rate to me than 0.5pb over 2m in one second.

IANANE (I Am Not A Networking Expert)

Flawed, but still scalable. (1)

Xailia (763749) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046487)

TCP may be flawed [slashdot.org] , but at least it's still scalable.

Re:Flawed, but still scalable. (1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046506)

Good Christ, you are a fucking idiot.

Why TCP... (2, Interesting)

Handpaper (566373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046498)

when UDP has so much less overhead [whnet.com] ?

Re:Why TCP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046551)

Yeah, but at least TCP gets there. ;)

Re:Why TCP... (2, Informative)

Dodger73 (654030) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046589)

a) Because UDP isn't reliable. In other words, if you'd send byte by byte via UDP, there's no guarantee that they arrive in the same order, or arrive at all. You'd need to make it reliable by implementing your own layer on top of it. b) because TCP is what the majority of traffic on the net is, and using it for a benchmark is more realistic

Reliable data transfer was more important? (4, Informative)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046597)

Perhaps because they wanted the data to arrive reliably?

UDP just sends off the data without caring whether it actually arrives intact at the other end, you know. TCP, on the other hand, actually gives delivery guarantees...

way OT (2, Informative)

justMichael (606509) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046613)

Re: your sig...
To provide more relevacne for the band you might want to use something like the following:

Googling up my brother's Acid Metal band, Ahymsa [ahymsa.co.uk]

Google places more weight on the text that's actually inside the link ;)

compression (4, Interesting)

sir_cello (634395) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046513)


Did they check for any inband compression? They data they're sending isn't randomised.

Re:compression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046750)

Alright, I'll bite. What the hell does that mean?

466 MB/s (4, Interesting)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046519)

840GB/30 minutes = 466 MB/s, or 3,728 Mbps

478 MB/s (1)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046561)

(((840*1024)/30)/60) = 477.86 MB/s or 3,823 Mbps

Re:466 MB/s (3, Informative)

cmacmanus (713176) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046615)

Straight from the site:

838860800000 bytes in 1588 real seconds = 4226 Mbit/sec ..assuming you were speaking of mbits, too. :P

link to a relevant page ... (1, Informative)

grazzy (56382) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046529)

SUNET Internet2 Land Speed Record: 69.073 Pbmps [sunet.se]

Now give me my carma..

Re:link to a relevant page ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046573)

link to a relevant page ... (Score:0, Redundant)
Now give me my carma..

No karma for pookie, it seems.

Re:link to a relevant page ... (0, Offtopic)

grazzy (56382) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046761)

hehe,no, the google ad owned me ;)

BSD isn't.... (-1, Troll)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046530)

BSD isn't dying!!!!!!!!

Piratbyran (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046531)

What was the slogan of the recent pro-piracy demo in Sweden? "Vi vil har sex, vi vil har sex, vi vil har 600MBit!"?

Mandatory RIAA/MPAA Comment (5, Funny)

FlameboyC11 (711446) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046541)

Somebody should show Valentini [slashdot.org] this, I wonder what he'd say...

Val: "You students transfered how much?"
Sunnet: "About 30 movies a minute"
Val: "Un-fucking beli-Oh wait, I already said that..."

Nothing like.. (5, Funny)

cmacmanus (713176) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046543)

..transferring 840 gb of swedish porn across the pond. ;)

How long till we can use it? (2, Funny)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046546)

When is this supposed to be available for the average joe to use?

Also, what measures (if any) have they taken to combat the current internet's limitations and vulnerabilities?

Re:How long till we can use it? (4, Funny)

RelliK (4466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046570)

When is this supposed to be available for the average joe to use?

Thursday.

Re:How long till we can use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046656)

smells like karma whorin to me.

Re:How long till we can use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046695)

but it's pretty damn funny anyway...

Re:How long till we can use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046714)

not really.

Distances, people!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046558)

Considering how Sweden is nowhere even close to the size of the United States' Internet2.edu backbone, this is absolutely insignificant. When Swedish scientists transmit that much data across a country the size of the US, send me an email.

Re:Distances, people!!! (4, Insightful)

endx7 (706884) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046621)

Actually, they data transfered across Sweden, part of Europe and then the United States which (according to them) took up 10,157 miles total.

Re:Distances, people!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046647)

"Between a host at the Luleå University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA."

Thats a big distance.

Re:Distances, people!!! (1)

remahl (698283) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046658)

I suppose this may be a troll, but you just have to RTFBlurb to see that the transfer was between a university in northern Sweden, and one in San Jose, CA, USA.

RTFS (3, Funny)

Granis (92074) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046659)

Read the Fucking Summary ;)

Re:Distances, people!!! (2, Funny)

tedu (647286) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046661)

if you take a look at map, you'll notice that san jose is kinda far away from sweden.

Re:Distances, people!!! (4, Insightful)

NNKK (218503) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046708)

Not only did you not RTFA, you didn't read the *slashdot* article:

"between a host at the Luleå University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA."

This wasn't across Sweden, it was across the Atlantic Ocean and North America.

Cursive writing is for fools! (2, Funny)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046769)

Notice that you accidentally dotted an "a", you cursive-writing moron! If you would just print like a regular person, that would never happen.

Re:Distances, people!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046730)

hen Swedish scientists transmit that much data across a country the size of the US, send me an email.

You don't read very well, do you? And who is the idiot who modded this insightful?

between a host at the Luleå University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA

So, it went from Sweden, across the Atlantic Ocean, across the continental USA all the way to San Jose.

Hint: San Jose is on the West Coast of the USA. The Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast of the USA.

Re:Distances, people!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046755)

I've been to Sweden. I've been to San Jose, CA.
I wouldn't say that they're in walking distance from each other.

The PMS as a unit of measure? (2, Funny)

loqi (754476) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046575)

Sorry, but I've seen much higher rates of it than this.

Never under estimate... (1, Redundant)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046576)

I've heard that joke, "never under estimate the bandwidth of a 78 chevy and a box of hard drives," but now I don't know about that one anymore.

Re:Never under estimate... (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046685)

Apparently you haven't heard it enough.

The achieved speed was 69.073 Petabit-meters/sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046587)

Just wait till you see the bandwidth of my minivan loaded with backup tapes!

Tro]lL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046590)

I've always wondered about Internet2 (2, Interesting)

aerojad (594561) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046594)

So, is this just using a secure connection on our internet, or did they go ahead and string up an all new internet for no one but theirselves to be on? I don't really see the point of the latter - why not dump the money into vastly improving the current internet and stomping out spammers and things that make the place bad?

Re:I've always wondered about Internet2 (1)

BeesTea (580793) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046678)

http://www.internet2.org/

Re:I've always wondered about Internet2 (3, Informative)

bgog (564818) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046710)

The Internet2 is a separate network running on IPv6. Currently it is being developed and tested between a veriety of universities, ballsy ISPs and a few buisnesses. Simply upgrading the current internet won't solve many of the problems. (like multicast) Supposedly once internet2 is doing really well, isps will slowly migrate until the old network is mosly gone.

Note, there are bridges between internet1 and internet2.

Re:I've always wondered about Internet2 (-1, Redundant)

spectral (158121) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046726)

No, Internet2 is a network. Perhaps all nodes have to run IPv6, but I know for a fact that IPv4 runs over it too. I don't have 6to4 installed or anything like that, so I don't know how my IPv4 stuff would go over it (hell, maybe it gets encapsulated in IPv6 automatically, whatever..) But notice the article specifically said IPv4.. why would the I2 LSR requirements require IPv4 on an IPv6 network?

Re:I've always wondered about Internet2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046718)

Mabye http://www.internet2.org/ gives some answers?

*BSD Anthem: Last Disk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046604)

"Last Disk" [to the tune of Last Kiss by pearl jam]

Oh where, oh where is my BSD?
It was Beta 2.0 (Free).
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see the OS when I leave this world.

I'd started to load it, got the CD at last,
A Slashdot story said 'twas lightning-fast.
During the load, it crashed the heads,
the distro was stalled, *BSD was dead.
I couldn't stop it, so I yanked the cord.
I'll never forget, the sound , oh Lord--
the screamin' drives, the speaker's blast,
the painful scream that I-- heard last.

Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
That load took it away from me.
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.

When I woke up, the sparks were pourin down.
There were admins standin all around.
Some burned-out chips had fallen on the tiles,
but somehow I found my disc of files.
I lifted the CD, the devil winked and said,
"Load me darlin just a little while."
I held it close, I kissed the label--our last kiss.
I found the love that i knew i had missed
well now it's gone, even though I loaded it right
I lost my *BSD and the Dell-- that night.

Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.

When I next went to Slashdot, where so many had trolled.
Any so many times "BSD's Dead!" was told.
Tears fallin' on the keyboard, I checked "Anonymous"
and I eulogized *BSD, in memory, of us....

When I logged on next, my post was modded down.
In my heartbreak and sorrow, treated like a clown....
No matter what the mods do, it's in my heart and head
We'll always know "*BSD IS DEAD!"

Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.

Keep working on it - not fast enough. (1)

EatenByAGrue (210447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046605)

We need to get to the point where the only limiting factor is the human in front of the computer. I hate waiting for my computer, whether its downloading a file or waiting 2 seconds for a web browser to start. Everything should be instant - I am excited for the day that nothing happens on a computer slower than I can think about it. A 2 hour HDTV movie is about 20 gigabytes - download it to me in less than a second and prompt me what to do next.

Keep working on it - not fast enough. (4, Funny)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046671)

Everything should be instant

I bet you were a little shithead when you were a kid.

petabyte-meters!? (1, Interesting)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046681)

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a somewhat useless measure? I mean, I suppose that the longer a link is, the more interference, but really, seems like a rather pointless mesure to me.

Re:petabyte-meters!? (2, Informative)

forsetti (158019) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046707)

Well, this is the "Land Speed" record, so distance does matter to some degree. This makes it useful to compare against the "bandwidth of a station wagon" -- more of a comparison of amount and distance over time.

Means nothing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046738)

This was just node to node.. when they build a network that 1 billion users can simultaneously transfer data TO EACH OTHER at 100 Mbps (yes I'll be happy with Mbps) .. wake me up.

Land Speed? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046740)

I didn't know you could get from Sweden to San Jose overland!

S.

as a friend said while reading this article... (1, Offtopic)

Ruliz Galaxor (568498) | more than 10 years ago | (#9046742)

if internet2 is so fast, then why do you want to replace internet4 by internet6 instead of internet2?

It took me a few seconds to realize he was confusing IP with Internet. After that I said it was impossible to send email over internet2 and he seemed quite satisfied with the answer ;)

sig(h)

The Quick and the Dead ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9046748)

It's dead, but it is fast? Click here [oceanstreetvideo.com] to see another example of this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?