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!

Ethernet at 10 Gbps

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the no-waiting dept.

The Internet 462

An anonymous reader writes "This article talks about 10 Gigabit Ethernet and asks, 'But just how much data can a person consume?' Currently at work, we're working on a major project to re-architect our core application platform so that the different systems can be de-coupled and hosted separately. The legacy design implicitly relies on systems being in the same LAN due to bandwidth-expensive operations (e.g., database replication). Having this much bandwidth would change the way we design. What would you do with this much bandwidth?"

cancel ×

462 comments

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

What would I do with this much bandwidth? (1, Redundant)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792650)

1)Get more porn
2)Download linux dvds
3)FINALLY get the coveted First Post!
4)Download even more porn

Play original quake obviously (1)

DarthVeda (569302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792677)

I mean it's not worth playing if you don't have 1 or 2ms ping time...

What would I do with this much bandwidth?-Music. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792695)

Oh ye of little imagination. Download every piece of music in the world. Every bit of art. Every scratch of writing.

Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?-Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792703)

As long as I have this here jews-harp, I gots all the music I need. Readin'? Ain't nothin' but a bunch of devil scrawl no-how.

Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?-Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792715)

Why? With that much pipe, it's everything at your fingertips, ture on demand entertainment would be possible. There'd be zero need to store it locally.

Reminds me of an old quote... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792705)

Just get us the bandwidth - we'll manage to piss it all away. Easy!

1G should be enough for anyone.
-- Nicholas Cravotta, 2004

640K should be enough for anyone.
-- Bill Gates, 1981

Re:Reminds me of an old quote... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792754)

we'll manage to piss it all away. Easy!

WHile it will be pissed away at first, somebody will suddenly come up with an innovative idea that requires hire speed. It will go beyond simple transfer of a ripped(-off) movie or music. But it will happen.

Reminds me of an old quote...Beam me,...around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792790)

"WHile it will be pissed away at first, somebody will suddenly come up with an innovative idea that requires hire speed.[emphasis mine]"

A freudian slip if I ever heard one.

Beaming your body around the planet will eat that bandwith right up.

That's exactly the quote I remembered (1, Insightful)

empaler (130732) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792791)

when I saw the news item.

I mean... there's no such thing as too much of anything in computers. When's the last time you said "Accursed be this high transfer rate" or "I wish the computer had less RAM so it would swap more!".

Come on.

What else? (-1, Redundant)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792651)

What every Slashdotter does - download porn!

Re:What else? (1)

Mumbly_Joe6432 (789265) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792682)

Woah! don't jump to conclusions! Wait...never mind, you're right.

It's true though that if the technology is there, someone will find a use.

Re:What else? (1, Redundant)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792696)

It's true though that if the technology is there, someone will find a use.

And, if the internet and VHS are any indication; that "someone" will probably be the porn industry.

Insightful, not Funny!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792798)

stupid moderators.

What else?-Testosterone pullups. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792710)

"What every Slashdotter does - download porn!"

So the Slashdot population is exclusively, teenage males?

Yes, because as we all know, (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792806)

women find sex repulsive, and so do anyone beyond the age of nineteen.

Except one of my friends. She just borrowed a porn VHS from her teenage brother. Then again, she doesn't read /.

fp!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792653)

pf son!!! p$ rules!

Re:fp!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792678)

ahh shit. missed it by a split second

omg (0, Troll)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792656)

Think of the porn!

Farnst Penst! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792657)

Narf!

sellfone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792658)

LOL @ SUICIDE

FIZZLE PIZZLE UR UNCLE IS GHEY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792659)

lixor mah penix faggio

Porn! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792660)

It had to be said.

Re:Porn! (1)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792680)

Porn! (Score:0) It had to be said. Over, and over, and over.

HDTV baby! (1, Insightful)

Rectal Prolapse (32159) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792663)

1920x1080p, minimal compression, streamed...

HDTV recording...

Porn. Lots of porn.

Obvious isn't it?

HD Video for one (1)

SYFer (617415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792664)

This would be a boon for HD video workflows. I should think it would be attractive to companies like Pixar and the like.

Hmm... (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792665)

What would you do with this much bandwidth?"

Check out more unusual positions.

Number four, (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792817)

Crunchy frog, the crunchy frog.

A really big ... (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792672)

Doom III LAN party!

Hey, why not? (2, Funny)

AJYeary (766010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792674)

Build an entire slashdot-proof network!

With 10Gbps? (0, Redundant)

Skjie (799104) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792675)

Porn. And....uh... well, I guess porn. I mean, what else would that band be needed for?

Re:With 10Gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792745)

Well, you could use it to post the word "porn" to this discussion again. Because God knows we need that.

What would I do? (4, Interesting)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792681)

The company I used to work for was sending very high resolution images from multiple cameras uncompressed from one unit to another to perform analytical operations on them. I think they manged to work at a gigabit, but 10 would be much nicer for them.

What would Joe Sixpack do with it? I'm not sure at the moment. Thing is, since we're working within our limitations today it's hard to concieve of whta use it'd be. However, what happens when it becomes commonplace? It does open doors. Imagine if cable companies traded in coax for ethernet. They could easily send uncompressed HDTV. That'd be pretty slick.

What would I do?-Horror-vision. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792738)

"What would Joe Sixpack do with it? I'm not sure at the moment. Thing is, since we're working within our limitations today it's hard to concieve of whta use it'd be."

The Goatse.cx experience in holographic, 5.1 surround-sound, smello-tactile-vision.

Re:What would I do? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792772)

. Imagine if cable companies traded in coax for ethernet. They could easily send uncompressed HDTV. That'd be pretty slick.

note: i'm pulling most of these numbers out of my ass, as i am too lazy to look up the real values. but they're close enough for our purposes here.

say hdtv is 1280x1024 (yes, i know it's not 4x3), at 24 bit color. that's 3,932,160 bytes per frame, uncompressed. at 60 frames per second, that's 235,929,600 bytes per second, or 1,887,436,800 bits per second, uncompressed. note that this is without sound. with ethernet overhead, that's about 2 gigabits per second PER CHANNEL. assuming that you could even approach a real throughput of 10 gbps on 10gbps ethernet, you'd have 5 channels (with no sound).

care to rethink your statement?

Re:What would I do? (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792780)

"Imagine if cable companies traded in coax for ethernet."

I think you're confusing your layers. Besides, compared to coax, twisted pair is like dixie cups and fishing line.

Re:What would I do? (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792781)

Thing is, since we're working within our limitations today it's hard to concieve of whta use it'd be.

Isn't that always the way? I remember having a 20Mhz IBM PS/2 and wondering "How am I going to use all this power?" And the 30 MB hard drive- how would I ever use all that space?

It seems like when we have the capabilities, we find something to do with the extra. HDTV sounds probable, and more bandwidth can only help working over networks on a mass scale (remote home folders and roaming profiles, VNC/Citrix), but you never know. When processors were getting to the 1Ghz point, a bunch of industry analysts were predicting "Now that we have enough power to make working speech-recognition software, we can finally ditch those keyboards!" Yeah, right.

The big concern is, with the extra bandwidth, will Microsoft see this as an opportunity to release new, extra-inefficient network protocols?

silly question (2, Funny)

00zero (792723) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792685)

10 Gb is rediculous. 640K should be enough for anyone.

good political satire [the-torch.com]

Re:silly question (1)

00zero (792723) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792704)

I now apparently advocate extremely dynamic spelling schemes.

good political satire [the-torch.com]

Re:silly question (3, Funny)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792724)

In the future, spelling will not be a part of the post at all, but will be defined by external Cascading Spelling Sheets. Of course, in order to implement this we all have to learn Chinese.

Re:silly question (1)

00zero (792723) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792769)

I knew I should have read the documentation.
Do jeh! Xie xie!

good political satire [the-torch.com]

Re:silly question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792816)

In the future we'll have to learn Chinese anyway. Might as well start earlier and get all the benefits :-)

true remote storage transparency (2, Informative)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792686)

When your network pushes over 1 gigabyte/sec, diskless workstations become a much more interesting possibility.

Typical desktops of the past few years see roughly ~25 megabyte/sec sustained disk throughput (more for SCSI and more recent ATA models). A switched 1 gigabyte/sec network could easily and transparently support 25 remote drives virtually indistinguishable from local storage.

Re:true remote storage transparency (1, Insightful)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792766)

Diskless workstations aren't.

They are just (ab)using the disks of the servers. How Uber Are Your Servers(tm)? Show me a server that can sustain that 1 gigabyte a sec disk access to support those workstations... :p

Re:true remote storage transparency (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792794)

Large Ram disk works wonders for a server that is handling 25 systems.

Re:true remote storage transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792809)

They are doing something similar to that with the servers at work. The Individual servers have a local operating system and small disk drive, But the main application is run from a SAN system connected at very high speeds, The local operating system just sees a extra logical drive, which is actually on a terabyte server on the other end of the plant.

Its so sexy, but all they will let me do is run the fiber for it.

Taking over the world (1)

keepr (613447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792687)

With that much bandwidth at my fingertips my dreams of taking over the world might become a reality.

Muahhha ahahahahahahahaha!

answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792688)

Porn

I'd actually get work done... (1)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792689)

At my place of employment we have a distributed build environment that can slow to a crawl sometimes. That's typically when I make my usual web-page rounds. If we had a network that fast I'm sure everyone could get more work done since the build bottleneck would no longer be the network but the build servers themselves (which are blazing fast :-).

A lot more then 10 (1)

mp3LM (785954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792690)

You can use it as a backbone in a building. And in a few years, it will be less then enough for the common user. Remember...over time...most programs get bigger.

Remember back in the day, when someone would have a 10Mb switch, and it was amazing? And 100Mb switches were over the top? Well, now 1Gb switches are amazing, and 10Gb switches are over the top.

To me, this means online games can run better(provided ISPs upgrade there backbones as well...past whatever they are). P.S.-Yes, I know ISPs backbones are more then enough now, but I was stating for future.

Re: A lot more then 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792734)

Backbone in a building?

If this is the same ethernet I'm thinking of, the
maximum cable length is inversely related to speed.

This is necessary for collision detection.

At 10 gigabit, I suspect we're talking about
an arm's length.

Repeat after me (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792694)

You can never, EVER, download porn fast enough. There's no such thing as "enough bandwidth".

Worked for a medical company (2, Informative)

RoundTop-VJAS (580788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792706)

I worked for a medical imaging company and they would use it.

they are using gigabit already and you can see slowdown...simply put, a couple hundred 100MB+ x-rays to a single box.... multiply that by however many boxes the hospital has..and 10 gigabit is nice.

The problem hits in not having enough RAM..and with a 4GB limitation on workstation OS's for the most part this amount of bandwidth could get funky.

Cant use the bandwidth anyway (1)

PimpbotChris (775813) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792708)

From TFA: " The Windows operating system imposes one of the primary bottlenecks at this speed. As one network administrator says, "When we want to stress test our network, we use Linux, not Microsoft." His experience is that contention and file-system-overhead issues within Windows limits 1 GE desktop links to 1.25 Mbps. Even a quad-processor server peaks at 250 to 300 Mbps, with the processor at 100% usage."

So if we cant use the extra bandwidth then whats the point of having it. You can already get 100 Mbps dedicated from a switch to the desktop with old technology

Re:Cant use the bandwidth anyway (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792742)

Uhm, well, you gave the answer yourself - use Linux.

Re:Cant use the bandwidth anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792751)

His experience is that contention and file-system-overhead issues within Windows limits 1 GE desktop links to 1.25 Mbps

What is he smoking? I consistently run near 100 megabits (usually between 90 and 98) between my Windows desktops.

If I can push 8 megabits out of a 486 and an ISA card, there is something wrong with this guy's claims.

Re:Cant use the bandwidth anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792830)

He obviously means 125 Mbps, not 1.25.

Remote Virtual Immersion (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792709)

But just how much data can a person consume?

If I was going under the knife remotely [wustl.edu] , I'd want the surgeon to have as much bandwidth as possible (and very, very, very low latency).

Re:Remote Virtual Immersion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792748)

Yeah, and hope his name isn't Dr. Bill "HPB" McNeal.

Re:Remote Virtual Immersion (0, Offtopic)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792774)

Why do you wish to work at America West? My little sister works there and the understanding is that they are having real trouble. It is a big part of the reason why they treat their employee's like s**t.

The inevitable result.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792711)

All electronic devices in the household or at the workplace(running Linux of course) linked together into a system capable of remotely running anything anywhere from anywhere else.

Re:The inevitable result.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792775)

Yeah? And have you been working on this totally creative and original idea all by yourself, or have you just been in a cave since 1997?

Remote pacific island, if you must know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792827)

Now that I've answered your question...did I miss much?

WWID? (1)

z0ink (572154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792713)

How about setup a digital broadcast network in my house?

10 gigabit is kinda much (1)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792717)

With 10 gigabit LAN, the bottleneck won't be the LAN. It will be your servers. Their I/O busses, disk systems etc.

Even at 1 gigabit, usually the bottleneck is elsewhere.

10 Gigabits = roughly 1 gigabytes/sec. Considering that PCI bus is 33MB/sec, and even PCI-X is 66MB/sec... Heck the memory bus of my brand new system is only about 1 gigabytes a second.

Re:10 gigabit is kinda much (4, Informative)

cynical kane (730682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792779)

PCI is 33Mhz, not 33 MB/sec. 33 X 32-bit-bus = 133 MB/sec. PCI-X goes up to 133 Mhz and 64-bit, so that's 800 MB/sec.

CRS-1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792718)

1. Slap 4 of them in a linux box.
2. Build a pretty case to rival CRS-1 [cisco.com] .
3. Undercut Cisco by god knows how much. Lots of profit.

What would we do with it? (1)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792719)

"porn. Lots of porn" /Neo

FlashMob (1)

Kyle Hamilton (692554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792721)

I would build a supercomputer with flashmob software http://www.flashmobcomputing.org/

FFS give the writer some grammer lessons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792725)

architect is NOT a verb

Video, lots-o-data (1)

1337 Twinkie (795608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792726)

I could definitely use this for transferring large amounts of video between my PC and my other PC that has a DVD burner. I suppose that companies like Pixar would be interested in this regard.

There are also companies (finacial, law, etc...) that could need to transfer huge documents (1000+ pages) between people. Huge databases could also be accesed better, I suppose.

To be politically correct on /. (1)

deunan_k (637851) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792729)

Of course, Pr0n, pr0n and even more pr0n! (notice that I use pr0n instead of porn!)

Well, being an anime otaku, instead it'll be hentai, hentai and even more hentai!

Uuhhh, just imagine those tentacles! :-P

Seriously, with that much of bandwidth available, the world keep getting smaller.. Sooner or later, it'll get crowded! Then'll we be in trouble.. Oh man!

It's either survival of the fittest, or... We go to 'Space.. The Final Frontier.. These are the voyages of...' you get my drift...

But when?

FTP Installs of linux/BSD (1)

Crackez (605836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792730)

On my 8 different machines, at the same time...

Of course, each one is less than 1GHz, so being able to handle 10Gbit is not very likely. Damn, most of em' can't even max out 100Mbit, stupid slow harddrives...

Re:FTP Installs of linux/BSD (1)

Crackez (605836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792741)

However, I just thought, this would sure help out with all those Beowulf clusters people like to imagine around here...

Holo-Porn (2, Funny)

Hallowed (229057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792731)

That might be just enough bandwidth to get a life-like signal to the holographic projector!

it goes without saying (1)

B1ood (89212) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792736)

i'd setup a usenet server.

Re:it goes without saying (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792828)

-1 Redundant: see all previour porn-postings :-)

Funny little sidebar... (1)

lofi-rev (797197) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792737)

The Windows operating system imposes one of the primary bottlenecks at this speed. As one network administrator says, "When we want to stress test our network, we use Linux, not Microsoft." His experience is that contention and file-system-overhead issues within Windows limits 1 GE desktop links to 1.25 Mbps. Even a quad-processor server peaks at 250 to 300 Mbps, with the processor at 100% usage.

Yeah I'm a snob, but at least my OS [kernel.org] works.

Re:Funny little sidebar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792829)

Perhaps, but my OS [freebsd.org] consistently benchmarks better and has a codebase without a questionable background

The Network Is The Computer (tm) (4, Insightful)

gusnz (455113) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792747)

OK, so for stuff like streaming MP3s and so forth, this is a little overkill for the current style of usage. However, where I think this will come in useful is for stuff like remote disk and memory access over IP.

With a 10G LAN, you'd be able to come up with a great distributed computer system (e.g. for compiling software). IIRC protocols are in the works now for native-ish memory access over networks, turning a network into one huge computer, and you can already access remote disks with the right software. Imagine the simultaneous distributed encoding of several HDTV streams to redundant archives on several different computers, and you'll probably find that more bandwidth = better.

So yeah, there'll definitely be possibilities for this sort of stuff, even if it is only as a base requirement for the post-Longhorn Windows version :).

Create my own Linux Distro Ofcourse! (1)

Lurk3r (786010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792749)

I would create and host my own linux disto, Pornix.

In short (1)

krray (605395) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792750)

In short I'd have to replace all my NIC's and switches. That sucks. Considering that the move _recently_ made from 100Mbit to 1Gbit (LAN) with the steady 10Mbit uplink to the Internet.

The major problem (today) with 10Gbit? None of the sub-systems could handle the bandwidth. The absolutely rockin' stations with SCSI Ultra-320 (like my Mac @ home for example :) simply couldn't handle the bandwidth. At the bus level or at the hard drive level. So in addition to replacing NIC's and switches we'd be completely replacing computers too. Not going to happen any time soon for the majority of the systems...

Considering that I easily handle multiple VoIP lines and general Internet traffic along with video with the 10Mbit uplink to the Internet and constantly move data around which completely saturates the hard drive and bus bandwidth of the majority of local system ... I have no use for 10Gbit. Anywhere.

Yet. :)

In short-Amish computing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792833)

"The major problem (today) with 10Gbit? None of the sub-systems could handle the bandwidth. The absolutely rockin' stations with SCSI Ultra-320 (like my Mac @ home for example :) simply couldn't handle the bandwidth. At the bus level or at the hard drive level. So in addition to replacing NIC's and switches we'd be completely replacing computers too. Not going to happen any time soon for the majority of the systems..."

Let's see. 64 bit computing...check
PCI-X...next year.
SATA in RAID...check.
IEE1394...check, Latest...next year.
Screaming video cards...check.

I'd say we're closer than people think.

pr0n? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792753)

This isn't 10Gbps to the outside world. It's 10Gbps on an ethernet. Who downloads porn from their companies intranet? If you do, then, are you guys hiring? ^_^

Imagine a beowulf cluster... (2, Insightful)

3) profit!!! (773340) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792755)

Seems like this would be useful for people trying to build clusters with commodity hardware.

Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster... (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792814)

as opposed to beowulfs built with non-commodity hardware?

beowulfs does seem like one of the best uses, either 10 gigabit or at least push the cost of 1 gigabit LANs right down.

Distributed computing? (2, Insightful)

erice (13380) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792765)

For distributing intermediate results, I don't imagine there is such a thing as too fast.

While there are certainly applications that don't need to communicate that fast, more bandwidth means more alogrithms can become practical.

It's not like you can use it download porn, unless the action is happening in the next room. This is not a WAN technology.

Beats me... (1)

dopefish3 (251821) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792768)

On a simular note, what would you do with 640k?

Verbing Nouns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792770)

architect Audio pronunciation of "architect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärk-tkt)
n.

1. One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
2. One that plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief architect of war in the Middle East.

NC-PC-NC (4, Insightful)

basking2 (233941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792773)

So, we used to have little dumb terminals that talked to the big smart backend. Then computer became cheaper and we had Personal Computers, but we have to manage and distribute all these updates and it's a real pain and it sometimes destroys your computer during the upgrade/install process. Now we can swing the pendulum back towards the Network Computer a little more.

This isn't a new idea. Software companies like MS would love to sell you a subscription to MS Office which you renew and they in turn patch and maintain the software on your company's server or on the MS servers. It's a neat idea for sure. Companies like Novel have made some interesting claims about Network Computers.

There is also the whole Plan9 [bell-labs.com] type of mentality too.

i2hub (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792777)

Why, I'd go on i2hub ofcourse [i2hub.com]

Latency not Just Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792784)

10Gb Ethernet is great bandwidth but what is the latency? Latency is how long it takes a packet to get from one end of the pipe to the other. Bandwidth is how much data can be put on the wire per second.

For example, think of what happens if I put a bunch of hard drives in my car's trunk and drive across town. The data per time is 60Tb/10min = 100Gb (lots of bandwidth), but the amount of time to transfer the first bit is 10min (long latency).

Some applications need one and other applications need others. For example remote backups or file transfers need lots of bandwidth, but steamming video or online games need low latency. Just don't for get to pay attention to the *other* network spec, latency.

Posts mentioning Porn (1, Offtopic)

munch0wnsy0u (619737) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792787)

I honestly cannot understand the Slashdot crowds (or maybe a selects few's) obsession with pornography. I read the title to this article and was reminded that the ensuing discussion would be centered around the act of "downloading more and more porn." Seriously gentleman, move beyond the teenage years and enter into a discussion that isn't focused around the act of parading women. Sorry, it isn't funny, intelligent, and I think most readers would say that you are simply embarassing yourself.

It's not the bandwidth (3, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792788)

It's the latency. No matter what your bandwidth may be, some tasks (e.g. file servers) need to be "close" to keep latency from being nasty.

"Close" applies both in physical distance (I have to count picoseconds for the kind of stuff I do) and in network distance, since every router adds considerably.

For some jobs (backup is a classic) latency is relatively tolerable. However, even for those you have to watch out because one error can cause the whole process to back up for retries. Ten to the minus fifteen BER sounds good until you look at what it can do to your throughput in a long-latency environment.

backups (1)

Squeezer (132342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792792)

we have several servers at work that tar.bz2 themselves up nightly and then scp the large .tar.bz2 file over to another server connected to an 8 tape autoloader. all the servers go through a copper cisco gigabit switch and even at gigabut speeds you are topping out at about 23megabytes/sec and transfering a 20GB+ file at this speed still takes several minutes. The servers all use raid 0 and can read faster then 23megabytes/sec so the quicker it can be transfered to the tape connected backup server the better.

Donald Duck (2, Funny)

DonaldDuckBigO (749237) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792793)

Donald Duck is going to have a SCREAMING ORGASM when he downloads Daisy Duck pr0n at 10Gbps and sees how hot she is OMG OMG OMG

Lots (3, Interesting)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792796)

We use lots of shared drives, remote desktop applications, X traffic, moving core files, database dumps, email with very large attachments (exchange to boot).

We migrated to 100meg, it was like night and day, and we still need more. We finally got 1gig to IT's network, and still to slow to push files with lots of users.

We have a burstable OC192 to our 2nd remote datacenter, OC48/12's to the smaller datacenters. But this is for production networks that need bandwidth, not desktop usage.

Also, my buddy in Japan just told me he got 100Meg DSL, the stuff you can do when bandwidth isn't a concern. Already Internet TV stations popping up there, amazing. Can't wait for this to catch on in the US. I just upgraded to 6M DSL from speakeasy, and its too fast for fileplanet.

Speed kills :)

in soviet russia... (-1, Troll)

makeyourself (704660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792802)

the data consumes YOU!

play an entire orc army (2, Funny)

Machine9 (627913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792808)

on world of warcraft, using a single router to hook several dozens of PCs to the net.

You won't actually have to control the orcs, the mere sight of them on your screen will initiate instant lag-death for people with lesser video cards.

This may help...I've been there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9792825)

But just how much data can a person consume?

If you're consuming 10Gbit, you've got a problem. I suggest you contact OverEthers Anonymous. They helped me see that I was just trying to drown my problems with .torrents of information.

But now...I just take it one data at a time.

What is that in MegaBytes per Hour? (1)

wadiwood (601205) | more than 10 years ago | (#9792826)

why is it that network and modem speeds are measured in bits per second but hard disk space and ISP download limits are in BYTES?

I want to know at 10Gbps, how many Meg per hour is that? How long would it take to blow my ISP download limit (4GB) or fill up the hard disk (120GB)?

If I tune into an online radio at 20bps - how many MB is that per hour? Even worse are the audio or video files available for download that say they are "five minutes long" but don't bother mentioning how many Bytes or bits at all.

It's not quite as bad as trying to convert from Metric to American Imperial measurements which are not the same as English Imperial measurements but not far off.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>