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!

IEEE Sets Sights on 100G Ethernet

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the aint-no-mountain-high-enough dept.

Networking 136

coondoggie writes to mention a Network World article about the IEEE's new 100G Ethernet initiative. The organizing body's High Speed Study Group has voted to try for the 100G standard over other ideas, like 40Gbps ethernet. From the article: "The IEEE will work to standardize 100G Ethernet over distances as far as 6 miles over single-mode fiber optic cabling and 328 feet over multimode fiber. With the approval to move to 100G Ethernet, the next step is to form a 100G Ethernet Task Force to study how to achieve a standard that is technically feasible and economically viable, says John D'Ambrosia, chair of the IEEE HSSG, and scientist of components technology at Force10 Networks." With video download services and interactive media becoming ever more the focus of internet startups, the organization is eager to offer a way to aggregate pipes in the coming years. The current thinking is that achieving these speeds will be reached by advancing bonding techniques for 10G signals over multiple fibers.

cancel ×

136 comments

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

Imagine.. (-1, Redundant)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115362)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those....

(sorry :)

Re:Imagine.. (0, Redundant)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115380)

In Soviet Russia, beowolf cluster imagines you!

Re:Imagine.. (0, Offtopic)

attemptedgoalie (634133) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115582)

Imagine a day where we can make it through a thread without people making Soviet or Beowulf comments.

Re:Imagine.. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115644)

In Soviet Russia ... Beowulf clusters you!

Re:Imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115658)

But what else can i spend my karma on?

Re:Imagine.. (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116320)

Doh !

Re:Imagine.. (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116754)

I for one welcome our nerdy hackneyed-joke telling overlords.

Ahh...screw it.

Funny you should mention... (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115872)

This sounds like an excellent technology to adapt for large cluster interlinks. It'd be nice to have insanely large pipes that go further than a few meters before the bits spill out.

I'm going to guess... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115372)

That off the shelf hardware won't be able to saturate a 100Gb connection.

Re:I'm going to guess... (3, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115534)

Chicken and egg -

Once the connectivity is there, hardware will become available and gradually more accessible as it is taken up, same goes the other way - if someone suddenly comes up with a bus and card capable of even higher speeds, it will slowly become available and more accessible until connectivity catches up and everyone wants it. Its all about getting to the point were a (potential) mass market appears and it makes the R&D viable. In the short term you will obviously see niche markets for it anyway - and they will pay buckets of cash for this kind of tech because they see a benefit from it.

Re:I'm going to guess... (5, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116160)

Hi I'm Progress, and I'm going to guess that we haven't met. I will be forever pushing forward with faster speeds. Thought you were happy with Gigabit over copper? LUDDITE! 10Gbit is enough for all your communication needs since you can xfer the library of congress 5 times a minute? THINK AGAIN! 100G Ethernet is the natural progression and before long you WILL want it. Trust me, I have been working this way for thousands of years. Glad we could get acquainted, now excuse me I need to get back to hiding from politicians.

Re:I'm going to guess... (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116522)

Glad we could get acquainted, now excuse me I need to get back to hiding from politicians.

Too late, we found you [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I'm going to guess... (1)

CmSpuD (995334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116606)

I misread that as "Hi, I'm Congress!" and did a double take. Congress? Progress? That can't be right..

Re:I'm going to guess... (1)

Stachybotris (936861) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116638)

Yes, and as little as 12 years ago I thought that we'd never be able to fill a single CD-Rom.

Re:I'm going to guess... (2, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117428)

That off the shelf hardware won't be able to saturate a 100Gb connection.


Depends on which shelf.

Seriously, a lot of folks commenting on this news item seem to be convinved that all networks have only one node. Sorry, but I'm on a university, and I think that our interbuilding connections could really saturate a 10 Gb connection in the near future. It may be a long time before one PC can make use of a 100 Gb connection, but it won't be long at all before 1000 PC's can. Deployments will start the same way that 100 Mb and 1 Gb started. Backbone switches will move to the fastest speed, feeding workstations moving at slower speeds. Some specialised equipment will be available for systems which really need to actually move that kind of data to a particular node.

Re:I'm going to guess... (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118600)

If you're on a 100G network by yourself, then correct. If there are a thousand other computers going through the same backbone, then maybe not.

Re:I'm going to guess... (1)

nokiator (781573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119028)

This standard effort appears to be targeted at 2009-2010. By that time, we are likely to see CPUs with 8-16 cores. This implies a total of 16-32 cores on a 1U dual-processor server, 32-64 cores on a 2U dual-processor server. Most server/chipset vendors are adding enhancements to further improve network throughput like TCP offload engines or virtual-NICs. By 2010, it is conceivable that one of these servers could easily sustain multi-gigabit network throughput and burst close to 10Gb/s for short periods of time. Once you connect a set of such servers to an access switch with 10G ports, how do you uplink this much network throughput? What kind of network interfaces and how much switching bandwidth would you need in the switch at the next level of hierarchy?

By 2009-2010, even if fiber-to-the home is not widely deployed, Cable and DSL customers will most likely have sufficient access bandwidth to support on-demand HDTV downloads. Even if we assume the video is H.264 encoded, you are still looking at 10Mb/s sustained bandwidth per subscriber. It takes only 10,000 subscribers to fill a 100Gb Ethernet pipe at those kind of access rates.

IMHO, there will be plenty of applications for 100Gb Ethernet.

What's in it for desktop users? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115392)

As it is, your average desktop will not handle anything even close to 100G Ethernet. At that point, your bottleneck is the PCI or PCI-X bus. As the bus has been one of the slowest PC components to innovate, I see these new, ultra-high speed Ethernet standards as only benefiting backbone providers, etc., for many years to come.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (4, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115486)

What, you think that any ISP would actually allow downloads fast enough to use over 100baseT?

Really, even full 10baseT (as an obtainable download speed, not just the home->CO link speed) would be an improvement to many people.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

pacman on prozac (448607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115628)

They would allow it if it was cost effective, some countries already have 100mbit to the home. To get that requires a huge backbone to start with and it needs to be available to the Telcos/ISPs at reasonable prices.

Bonding huge links together will be quite a feat, as far as I know the main bonding protocols in use now (etherchannel, LACP, etc) are based on current ethernet standards so may need some reworking, unless the large links are already using Ethernet (DWDM maybe?). Then there's the small matter of getting some hardware together that can switch at 100G....

But the OP is quite right, this isn't really aimed at end users and they'll only get benefits indirectly. This is aimed at things like British Telecoms new MPLS network that is supposed to carry all voice and data traffic on a single IP network.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115664)

What, you think that any ISP would actually allow downloads fast enough to use over 100baseT?

Believe it or not, some people use LANs for things other than accessing the internet... The internet connection speed becomes unimportant if the network is actually a SAN.

Really, even full 10baseT (as an obtainable download speed, not just the home->CO link speed) would be an improvement to many people.

We're reaching the point now where I've stopped caring so much about download speed (I have an 8Mbps DSL) - upload speed is becoming a serious headache since on most ADSL lines (at least in the UK) it tops out at ~340Kbps. At that upload speed you're talking about ~45ms per MTU sized (1500 byte) packet - that's quite a lot of latency jitter and can cause serious problems for realtime applications such as VoIP, which often have jitter buffers of only around 100ms long.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116284)

- upload speed is becoming a serious headache since on most ADSL lines (at least in the UK) it tops out at ~340Kbps
Well, apart from the fact that I seem to get 448kbps up (and I'm not alone) you can always try paying a little more.

For example - these people [lawyersonline.co.uk] are offering "Up to 24,576K download speed", and "Up to 1,331K upload speed" on a residential use basis for only £85.47 per quarter (£28.49 per month) I don't know the VAT status of that quote. Or they also offer this [lawyersonline.co.uk] .

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116910)

I guess I'm not one of them. I can burst up to 35Mb/sec, and can sustain downloads of just over 10Mb/sec (It's not quite 11Mb/sec). Even full duplex 10base-T wouldn't keep up with that.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

anticypher (48312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118140)

ADSL2+ speeds long ago left 10BaseT speeds behind. Now that ADSL2+ is becoming obsolete, and fiber is going in, expect that 3rd world countries will pick up the kit for cheap. 20Mbps sustained downloads are pretty common in Europe, 8-10Mbps in the UK. I know of many companies that have a single ADSL line for the 20 to 50 PCs in the office, its enough bandwidth for casual internet use.

Of course, if you live in a country with a corrupt administration and a broken telecoms regulator, then you will never know the joy of gigabit speeds or even relatively sluggish 24Mbps.

the AC

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115538)

Well that swimsuit supermodel in the magazine I've been lusting after will never date me, but I can dream about it can't I? At least 100G Ethernet to the desktop might be realized in my lifetime. A supermodel, not so much. :P

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116232)

But w/ a 100Gb Ethernet you can download the Real Doll data of the supermodel to your desktop fabber real fast!

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116734)

At some point in your lifetime, 100G Ethernet will be available on the market, and you will be willing to pay for it. Would you ever be willing to pay for a supermodel, which has been on the market since known human history?

See, that's the problem.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115586)

PCIe 2.0 is coming out soon (late 2007ish). That's like 5 Gbps per lane (or roughly 1/2 GB/s per lane). And there's always Hypertransport. With the way things are going in terms of HTX and AMD's Torrenza, it might not be long before you plug your NIC right into Hypertransport.
 
The real hold-up will be content. 100GB/s is 2 DL HD-DVDs per second. Even if we move to 3840 x 2160 or something, that's still a full length movie at ultra-HD resolutions every second.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (3, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115724)

Don't worry about content. We'll find plenty of things to fill that with.

Look at a platform like Second Life. It uses a very simplified version of CSG 3d modelling because of bandwidth constraints of current broadband. Now imagine Second Life with fully deformable meshes and high resolution textures in a world that is downloaded faster than you can move through it.

Anyway, we'll find plenty of things to do with more speed, we always do.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117244)

I imagined it--and it's still totally meh.

Perhaps they could add something more fun than "Buying Stuff" instead. Even Pokemon had a game to play while you were mindlessly collecting "them all".

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117818)

You don't "play" SL. That's like saying you got on this "world wide web" but the game of "buying stuff" was too boring. It's a platform, not a game.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115692)

Well, yes, that's what's in it for desktop users; networks upstream can scale further.

And who says you have to connect it to PCI-(E|X)? Hook it up directly to a HyperTransport link and talk to other systems on the network at reasonable speeds.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (4, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115910)

Heck, with 100Gb ethernet, who says you have to _have_ PCIe; once you reach those speeds it would be entirely viable to move most PC components to their own ethernet bus/network. Imagine having your NVidia graphics units connected to your LAN and usable from any of your PC's; plugging another unit into the network makes it instantly accessible by all devices as tho it was more or less local hardware. Etc.

SAN is storage moving that way, we might very well expect other components to move in the same direction.

Of course, expect a horde of crap patent applications for shit like 'graphics acceleration _over a network_' just because the technology becomes feasible. Which may drive prices through the roof and/or hold development back a decade or five.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (5, Insightful)

NeuralSpike (968001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117046)

Dude, I think with the various packet headers etc., 100Gbit isn't all that much faster than a 16x PCI express slot. And then there is latency...

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119410)

Yep. Mod parent up. Amazing the number of people on Slashdot who have no clue about networking.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115752)

Sure, your average desktop will not handle 100G Ethernet, but what kind of content or traffic could possibly require that much desktop bandwidth? And since this is over fiber, there are very few desktop networks out there you could even plug the PC into.

This will certainly be a backbone technology, and a server technology. But this particual technology doesn't seem likely as a desktop technology in the near future.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115894)

Well a faster Pipe for the ISP allow them to increase max speed for their users. So say they had a 100GB Eathernet for their backbone internet connection. That means they could possible increase the max speed for their customers to closer to 10MB as of right now most U.S. ISP tend to cap to 5MBS Anything above that could be to much demmand on their systems. So you as a desktop can see an impovement.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116042)

Right now actually the PCI bus can't even take advantage of a 10G Ethernet card - you'll see that in real world conditions standard server class hardware is pretty much capped at 2G because of bus limitations.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119704)

Pretty sure the PCIe bus can supply 1GByte/s to a 10Gbit card. I know low-end DDR2 RAM is capable of around 3GB/s of sustained data transfers.

And... I forget what the speeds are for HT...

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116292)

Because it's not about the desktop, but yes, desktop users benefit.

As backbone providers get more capacity, they can deliver faster speeds to their customers (your ISP and the ISPs of the websites you visit.) Ethernet is a very cost-effective physical transport layer as it removes some of the administration headaches involved with point-to-point links. This will eventually drive down the cost of fast backbones, allowing more bandwidth for less money.

Your average desktop user doesn't have a need for 10G, muchless 100G ethernet. By the time he needs 100G ethernet, there will be a bus capable of supplying it. Right now his hard drive can't even read anywhere close to fast enough to saturate a 1G link, so we have a ways to go in other areas first.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116312)

>>>"As it is, your average desktop will not handle anything even close to 100G Ethernet"

Key words there "As it is"; If they build it, etc...

Plus, I'd quite happily have 100G to the house. It would not be for one computer, but for the four that I currently have, plus who knows how many I'd have by the time they roll it out.

A couple of apps I might use it for [pipedream]:
thin client gaming to Google-games(TM), where the googleserver does all the game crunching, HDR etc. I might want to Slingbox HD media to my... er,,.. somewhere.
and, the most usefull: I might need to download pr0n really fast.

Ethernet speed vs. PCI/PCI-X/PCIe speds (2, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116466)

You are right. Here are some numbers for the curious, nothing comes close to 100 Gbit/s:

PCIe x16 (2.5 Gbit/s per lane, 8B/10B encoding): 32.0 Gbit/s bidirectional (64.0 Gbit/s of aggregated bandwidth)
PCIe x8 (2.5 Gbit/s per lane, 8B/10B encoding): 16.0 Gbit/s bidirectional (32.0 Gbit/s of aggregated bandwidth)
PCIe x4 (2.5 Gbit/s per lane, 8B/10B encoding): 8.0 Gbit/s bidirectional (16.0 Gbit/s of aggregated bandwidth)
PCIe x1 (2.5 Gbit/s per lane, 8B/10B encoding): 2.0 Gbit/s bidirectional (4.0 Gbit/s of aggregated bandwidth)
PCI-X 2.0, 533 MHz, 64-bit: 34.13 Gbit/s
PCI-X 2.0, 266 MHz, 64-bit: 17.07 Gbit/s
PCI-X, 133 MHz, 64-bit: 8.53 Gbit/s
PCI, 66 MHz, 64-bit: 4.27 Gbit/s
PCI, 66 MHz, 32-bit: 2.13 Gbit/s
PCI, 33 MHz, 32-bit: 1.06 Gbit/s

However, regarding 10G ethernet adapters, does anyone know when vendors will start making use of PCIe x8 or x16 for them ? In all those Internet2 benchmarks papers, everybody complains about PCI-X beeing too slow, but PCIe x8 or x16 would be perfect for 10G.

Re:Ethernet speed vs. PCI/PCI-X/PCIe speds (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117198)

You mean like Myricom

http://www.myri.com/Myri-10G/10gbe_solutions.html [myri.com]

Not bad prices, list is 795USD for a fibre optic card and 500USD for a SR optic or 900USD for a LR optic. A CX4 card is only 695USD. With switches like the HP Procurve 2900 having 10GbE CX4 as standard, I predict that 2007 is the year when 10GbE really moves mainstream.

Re:Ethernet speed vs. PCI/PCI-X/PCIe speds (1)

this great guy (922511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119832)

Wow, thanks for the info. I had never read about the release of this 10G PCIe NIC !

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116762)

And some of us would be happy if they only marginally bumped up the capacity, but worked on the latency issues instead. Something with Gigabit to 10Gigabit speed, but with less than 10 usec of latency would be a good start. Myrinet for everyone, since some of us use Beowulf-type clusters for work, rather than humor.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116948)

News flash, your average desktop cannot even handle a 1Gbps link, let alone a 10Gbps. Experience tells me that you will see about 30MBps max out of a 1Gbps link on desktop hardware. You need server grade kit to go faster. I can max out a dual bonded 1Gbps link on my servers for example.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117464)

This is quite true, my laptop pegs out its CPU after around 8MB/s. (Pentium M 1.6ghz)

Not to mention the poor HD, that is not contiguous writing, but rather multiple streams, so I imagine that the poor disk head is jumping all over the place trying to place that data!

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119154)

Wow, what the hell equipment are you running? My laptop is 2.4ghz Pentium M and I can transfer a gig in a minute. That's ~17megabytes/sec. Sounds to me like your network is either congested or your file server is sorely lacking. Hell, with my 14drive SATA array I break 550megabytes/sec of effective throughput on my file-servers. My SAN boasts even more performance so I see this stuff as becoming very useful. I can't utilize 100gbit but 10gbit I could certainly saturate pretty easily. Think VMWare images pushed to the desktop to provide users with a consistent clean work environment.

Another use for me at least would be transport of raw video so other machines could do the encoding so then I don't have to worry about having hardware do the whole thing in real-time on one box. Fortunately dual Opterons with dual cores provides enough for me to encode 4 streams in real-time but eventually I'll probably want more than 4 streams and a faster network connection would certainly help with that.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120332)


Wow, what the hell equipment are you running?


Dell D600 w/ integrated network card.

4 to 5 transfers at a time.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117324)

Even if the desktop user never has direct access to it, he will benefit. This sounds like a great way to solve the last mile problem; a 100-gigabit line will support 500-1000 users at 100 megabits each.

Re:What's in it for desktop users? (2, Informative)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117636)

At 100Gbps, your processor's L1 cache is a bottleneck.

Desktop bottlenecks are likely to go away (1)

nokiator (781573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119292)

It is true that 100GbE will not target desktop users when it first becomes available. Initially, new flavors of higher speed Ethernet is typically used in switch-to-switch connections. Higher speed links make it easier to aggregate traffic from lower speed links to a single logical link. It usually takes at least 4-6 years for a faster Ethernet standard to propagate from core/distribution applications to server/desktop connectivity.

However, the current PC architecture is not actually too far from removing the bottlenecks in being able to support a 100GbE interface. A 16-lane PCI-E interface has about 32Gb/s of bandwidth in each direction. The upcoming PCI-E 2.0 doubles the bandwidth per lane, such that a 16-lane PCI-E 2.0 interface would support about 64Gb/s of bandwidth in each direction. When PCI-E 3.0 comes out, it would most likely double the lane bandwidth again and provide sufficient bandwidth to support a 100GbE NIC. Unlike the PCI bus, which was a shared bus, doubling the signal rate on PCI-E may turn out to be easier since PCI-E is a point-to-point signaling architecture.

Thats 100 gigs, per second? nice (1, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115396)

And now for Slashdot madlibs: it would only take a few ______ (large time intervals ) at that speed to backup the average _____ (insert rival group here)'ers pr0n collection!

FLAMEBAIT? WTF? Mods on crack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17118264)

Flamebait, off-topic? Give me a break. The dude tried to make a (somewhat lame) joke pertaining to the topic. At best it should have been left alone and not modded up any. But off-topic? Nope, it's on topic. And flamebait? Where the fuck did that come from? It was a friggin joke, with nothing inflammatory whatsoever!

Man. I've seen some bad moderation, but usually it's understandable if you get inside the mind of the heavily biased moderator. This was just randomly bad, out of left field!

Nothing to see here, please move along,. . . (-1, Troll)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115444)

When they start talking about 100 GB WIRELESS ETHERNET over 6 miles, then we'll talk,. . .

Re:Nothing to see here, please move along,. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115506)

100gb/s wireless ethernet? I can't help but want to hide from the RF interference that would cause...

Re:Nothing to see here, please move along,. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115728)

You can hide, but you can't run.

I prefer Bill Watkins' take on it. (4, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115514)

"The need for 100G Ethernet is growing as IP video and transaction-intensive Web 2.0 applications are exploding across the Internet. Companies such as YouTube regularly add 10Gbps service pipes to meet growing demand, and carriers will need a better way to aggregate such links, industry watchers say."

- From TFA.

Which is all well and good, but for honesty, I prefer Bill Watkins' take on it.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn."

Bill watkins, CEO of Seagate [cnn.com]

Re:I prefer Bill Watkins' take on it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116942)

buy. heh

don't trust such initiatives (5, Insightful)

SilentGhost (964190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115520)

328 feet - it's a good standard, but I like 100 metres better.

Re:don't trust such initiatives (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115678)

Insightful? [google.com]

While I do prefer the metric system, it would be nice if the mods remembered to have their funny detectors on. =)

Re:don't trust such initiatives (1)

SilentGhost (964190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115790)

I'm sorry, but my comment wasn't meant to be funny. if any international body (or standardizing for that matter) would prefer to use in their everyday practice system not familiar to a vast majority of world's population, I wonder what kind of "standard" will it produce.

Re:don't trust such initiatives (3, Informative)

slcdb (317433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116034)

The actual standard will state the maximum distance in meters, not in feet. Whoever wrote the article did the conversion from meters to feet.

Just search IEEE 802.3 for yourself. You'll find no mention of "feet". Everything in there is measured in meters.

Re:don't trust such initiatives (1)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115690)

Interesting. I was wondering where they pulled that spec out of. My next question is: If they based this one off of metric, why did they base the other one off of Old English?

Re:don't trust such initiatives (4, Informative)

tool462 (677306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115962)

Pause for a moment and realize that 6 miles is approximately 10km, which is probably the "real" spec. Not only is it metric, but it's a power of 10, which gives me lots of warm fuzzies.

Re:don't trust such initiatives (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116908)

Oh tell me about it.

I have no idea how people can use imperial measurements. All we have to say is '1 litre'; they have to somehow remember 2.11337641 pints!!

Re:don't trust such initiatives (3, Funny)

trb (8509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117538)

I have no idea how people can use imperial measurements. All we have to say is '1 litre'; they have to somehow remember 2.11337641 pints!!

And they say 1 pint, and you have to remember 0.47317 litres. Tag, you're it.

28 g of prevention is worth .454 kg of cure. Ick!

Re:don't trust such initiatives (1)

sasdrtx (914842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117526)

By gum, I ain't using it until its maximum distance is a multiple of 100 good ol' American FEET!

Uplink (4, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115570)

What I really want to see is higher uplink ports on SMB hardware.

Right now, if I want to make a medium size network using lower cost components, it might look something like 5- 24 port, 100-meg switches with 1 GB uplink to a big GB switch.

The bottleneck here is those uplinks. Each 100meg switch has plenty of backplane, and so does the gigabit switch, but those 100 meg 24 port switches have to share 1GB each to the backbone MDF.

So I really don't care about PCs or network cards or whatever, just give me 10GB links that I can use between switches without having to pay for overpriced Cisco crap.

Re:Uplink (1)

!ramirez (106823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115670)

Oversubscription models have not ever crossed your mind, have they?

1:2.4 oversubscription isn't bad at all. Do you really think that a 24pt 100mbps switch needs 10 GIGABIT uplinks in order to work well? If so, I'm sure that Extreme or Force10 would love to sell you some hardware.

Re:Uplink (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115750)

I know, in hindsight my example wasn't too strong, I should have said 48 port switches, or pure gigabit.

But consider a pure Gigabit network. Right now you'd have to have gigabit IDFs with gigabit uplinks to gigabit MDFs... that's 24:1 oversubscription with 24 port switches.

Re:Uplink (1)

!ramirez (106823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115878)

Yes, in which case, if you want pure gigabit performance, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Can you legitimately justify to me, or anyone else, that an SMB network needs 1gbps access-layer switches, with 10gbps uplinks to distro/core layer switches? If that's the case, then I'll show you a network that needs to be running on something like Cisco, Extreme, or Foundry, and NOT your 'lowpriced SMB switches'.

You can't build a sports car out of turds and baling wire. Well, you could, but you shouldn't expect much from it.

Re:Uplink (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116462)

Maybe, but at the moment there is no way on earth we could take 1Gb to the edge at work. The network is two big. Think up to 1400 outlets a patch room, think over a dozen patch rooms in the building. We are not using cheap SMB switches either, it's a combination of managed enterprise HP Procurve and Cisco.

At the moment it is 100Mbps to the edge, 1Gb uplinks in the patch room, and 1Gb (sometimes two) uplinks out the patch room. We really need 10Gb uplinks out the patch rooms just to get the performance levels the users are crying out for. We really could use 1Gb to the edge, but this would need 10Gb concentrators in the patch rooms, and 100Gb uplinks, and all *way* two expensive. A 24 port Procurve 2900 will set you back over 1000GBP, and some of the patch rooms have over 50 Procurve 2626's in at the moment.

Re:Uplink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116702)

Too [wiktionary.org] , not two [wiktionary.org] . They're different words.

Re:Uplink (1)

!ramirez (106823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118364)

There are full-rack chassis capable of terminating 1200+ 1gbps links, and can support multiple 10gbps uplinks. Specifically, the Foundry NetIron MLX-32. I will be blunt - if you've got 50 24-port switches in a patch room, I can geniunely state that your network planning skills are atrocious. There *are* better solutions out there. You may not LIKE the cost, but to be honest, unless you're ready to build your own switch, it's always a toss-up between cost and features. If you can't spend to get the features, you shuoldn't expect them.

Re:Uplink (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117734)

There's no reason we need to have unnecessary bottlenecks on our uplink ports. 10G ethernet has been out of years, this waiting game is stupid.

Re:Uplink (1)

!ramirez (106823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118180)

You're arguing a ridiculous point - that there should never be oversubscription in a network, anywhere.

Re:Uplink (1)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118630)

There's the 3Com 5500G which supports 48x 1Gbs access and 2x 10Gbs uplink ports per 1u switch. They stack up to 8 units to allow up to 448 ports with 96Gbs stacking bandwidth. Individually each switch has 232Gbs switching capacity.

Re:Uplink (2, Interesting)

pacman on prozac (448607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115812)

You could use something supporting etherchannel and bond a few 1GB links together. We use that to great success, admittedly with using Cisco kit but there's plenty of other companies around making kit that supports channel bonding.

Incidently what are your users doing that maxes out gig uplinks? We have 96 ports sharing 2x1gig uplinks all over the office without problem, but none are particularly heavy traffic users.

Re:Uplink (3, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115868)

just wanted to note.. while yes Cisco is overpriced they most certainly are not crap.. they do exactly what they are supposed to do and they do it well. if you are looking for something that is above the average Joe's network you are going to have to pay whether it be Cisco, foundry, or anyone else - most people that have Cisco switches don't use half the features that they get with them.. they just plug them in and run.. it is their configurability that makes them rock.

Re:Uplink (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117706)

it is their configurability that makes them rock.

You mispelled suck.

We have several Cisco PIX doing routing and VPN. They break all the fucking time, whenever anyone touches anything. Fragile as hell, and hard to debug.

Our Cisco catalyst switch was the first switch I've ever seen that just crashed completely. We had to reboot it to fix it. Cisco wouldn't even believe us when we told them what happened.

I've had my fill of Cisco crap. Just because it costs a lot doesn't mean it's good. Look up cognitive dissonance.

Re:Uplink (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118538)

not to be a jerk but if you had a PIX doing routing i can see why it failed, that isn't what it is for. as for the switch what type.. and what do you mean by crash.. i know that just because something is expensive doesn't make it good.. but i have never had any problems with cisco equipment (except refurbs...) now i have seen alot of times when someone put too small of a router or switch in for their needs and didn't know any better.

and as for Cisco's VPN concentrators.. they are very good if you use cisco's client.. they don't play well with others.. but the routers and switchs are very nice.

Re:Uplink (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115880)

Channel bonding is your friend. Assuming a top of rack 48-52 port gig switch you can take your 1:48 over subscription down to 1:12 or 1:6. Depending on what your doing a 48+4 switch gets you a nice 1:12 over subscription and 1:24 with a failure assuming you can split up the vlans.

Re:Uplink (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117662)

I said with reasonably priced hardware for a small to medium business. We aren't talking vlans here.

Re:Uplink (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119224)

Ah so all dumb unmanaged switches? Small business I would hope, even my low end clients are running hp procurve or similar gear (lifetime maint is hard to beat) 24 +2 port fast e is a few hundred or just over $10 per port. If you really need speed I would think you would be running large MTU and cut through rather than store and forward switching.

Re:Uplink (2, Interesting)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119946)

If you don't need VLANs or managed switches, try the "smart" switches which fill the niche between completely unmanaged and fully managed switches. Then you can get things like a 48-port gigabit smart switch for around $1500. Which gives you 40 ports for end-users and 8-ports for uplink or backbone use. Even some of the less expensive "smart" switches support VLANs, but you have to configure using a web browser.

They aren't the fastest things in the world, but at least they do trunking.

(Heck, I have a 16-port SMC smart gigabit switch that I picked up for around $240. Gigabit is definitely within reach.)

Umm.. hey..? (1)

SuperStretchy (1018064) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115684)

Hey, if I help out.... Can I get it for free? My imaginary OC-192 is getting a tad slow and my imaginary income won't allow me to feed my imaginary family and get a 2nd 192.

Its already done (3, Interesting)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115796)

Not exactly but Bell Labs did something like this in March http://www.lucent.com/press/0306/060308.coi.html [lucent.com]

Re:Its already done (1)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115832)

Sorry for the incorrect link. I didn't realize alcatel and lucent merged and I simple copied the link from my bookmarks. Here it is again 100G [alcatel-lucent.com]

100G Ethernet is a series of pipes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116044)

the organization is eager to offer a way to aggregate pipes in the coming years

The internet is a series of pipes.

and you thought porn got things going... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116204)

porn was just the first step... now the big money comes in...

The glass teat is far more powerful than the fleshy one.

numb the monkey baby! OLPC so they can watch TV!

Not for home use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116262)

Obviously, these speeds aren't for home use and probably not for Internet backbones (the cable length is much too short). But Ethernet will always be best at what it was designed for - LANs. Sure, a lot of people have a LAN of some form or another at home. However, in the workplace, when you have hundreds of PCs all vying for the bandwidth, suddenly 100G becomes a lot more reasonable. 300 people moving 1 GB files across the network at 30 MB/s would still have room left over for everyone else. Not to mention that this would basically allow for remote hard drives to appear almost as if they were local save for about 1 or 2 extra ms of latency.

Re:Not for home use... (1)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116784)

We consistently use 4gb tiff files where I work, While compression technologies are great.. we tend to saturate our lines on busy projects. We have 2 Ds3's. More is always gooder :D

Re:Not for home use... (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117402)

where do you work? a map-making company or professional high-res (REALLY high) photography?

*sigh* (4, Insightful)

M0b1u5 (569472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117052)

Strange. The standard is to be "six miles" over single mode, and "328 feet" over multimode.

I don't get it!

I mean, we KNOW all decent standards use metric measurements - and Americans are inclined to convert them to the National Stupid System, so 328 feet makes sense (100 metres) - but where does this "6 miles" business come from? It is only 9,660 metres (9.66 km).

Surely the standard will be 10,000 metres - ten kilometres, and the poster was lazy, and couldn't be bothered with the extra 0.2 of a mile?

My question is this: when the specification is clearly based on very simple numbers: 100 metres and 10,000 metres - why convert that into the Stupid System? /.ers are not so stupid as to have to be fed figures fudged for obscurity!

More units stupidity in the article (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118724)

>push Ethernet to a megabits-per-second speed that does not currently exist under any standard

>a comparable 100Mbps standard does not exist now for Ethernet to emulate,

And then neglecting the question a journalist should have asked to add value over a press release, namely "Isn't this going to be way more expensive even than FDDI? How many machines have to be talking on the same LAN segment before this gets cost-effective?"

Re:*sigh* (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118814)

Don't blame the poster, blame the fucking article.

From the fucking article:
The IEEE will work to standardize 100G Ethernet over distances as far as 6 miles over single-mode fiber optic cabling and 328 feet over multimode fiber.
Also Network World is based in the United States, so it can be assumed that the majority of their readers are also United Statesmen, and therefore, would recognize miles and feet more quickly than kilometers and meters. As for the rounding, I could really care less if 6 miles is not exactly 10km. There close enough, I get the idea.

Little off topic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117990)

A friend and I once got into an arguement over which networking medium would benefit the most from research and development, and eventually become the norm.

Fiber is, obviously, blazingly fast, but it's hindered by a couple of factors, like maintenance (although there are two methods of splicing fiber, mechanical and fusion, the fusion method is the only effective one in my opinion), its brittle nature, and the minimum arc radius.

Wireless isn't as fast, but it isn't nearly as restricted by the physical environment.

Basically, is it theoretically possible for wireless to eventually achieve 100gb/s speeds?

Read the article - this is a con job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119020)

read the article - the way they are doing it is by bonding multiple 10G connections together.

What's the point of that ? We've got a large part of this already.

Telco's may be interested in this - within their data centres. For long haul it's no use at all.

What they should be doing is focussing on the 40G step - as the article states Ethernet technology been borrowing technology and designs from other topologies (SONET) which max out at 9Gb - surely the step up to something 4 times faster is easier than something 10 times faster ?

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>