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!

Siemens Reaches 107 Gbps Data Transfer Record

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Communications 161

prostoalex writes "Reuters is reporting on Siemens engineers reaching 107 Gbps data transmission record over a fiberoptic cable, and expects the technology to be on the market within a few years: "The test, 2.5 times faster than a previous maximum transmission performance per channel, was done in cooperation with Germany's Micram Microelectronic, the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and Eindhoven Technical University of the Netherlands.""

cancel ×

161 comments

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

Hooray! (4, Funny)

PixieDust (971386) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321622)

And everywhere, lonely geeks rejoice at the decreased download time for the favorite pr0n!

The problem is... (4, Informative)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321654)

And everywhere, lonely geeks rejoice at the decreased download time for the favorite pr0n!
This will not matter much, at least on the individual's machine. Most hard disk drives transfer on the order of 25MB/s. This fiber transfer is applicable only for supercomputing links and Internet backbones. Good luck finding a 107000000kbps stream ;)

Re:The problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321696)

Pardon me, but if we're going to be petty about details, let's be it all the way: 112197632 kbit/s :))::)):)99.9.9äö,.wtf

Re:The problem is... (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322928)

actually, when measuring bandwidth, si prefixes are in powers of 1000, not 1024.

Re:The problem is... (4, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321710)

Yes it will actually, this is a bigger pipe, and since the internet is a series of pipes..

But really, if an Aussie ISP (internode for instance) has just upgraded from 3Gb/s to around 6Gb/s, how much would it benefit them if they could just sell off most of the fibre they are using currently and just run one at 107Gb/s?

As for 25MB/s, a newer HDD will easily reach around 40-50MB/s, added with the popularity of NAS and small raid systems most good PCs can suck almost 70MB/s (560Mb/s).

Of course, with Australian broadband being lucky to get (until just recently) above 1.5Mb/s this is rather moot.

Actually... (0, Redundant)

zifn4b (1040588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322020)

According to some, "the internet is a series of tubes."

So you know the increased bandwidth will definitely help because "if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled. And if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material" ;)

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323710)

Shut up. Why anyone would waste time composing such a stupid redundant reply is beyond me. The next time you feel compelled to post garbage like that, remind yourself that you're an idiot, and it comes out when you write. As demonstrated with your above post.

Re:The problem is... (1)

Mike89 (1006497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323062)

Hello, fellow Whirlpoolian ;)

Re:The problem is... (1)

dextromulous (627459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321724)

This will not matter much, at least on the individual's machine. Most hard disk drives transfer on the order of 25MB/s. This fiber transfer is applicable only for supercomputing links and Internet backbones.
And my ISP is a gateway to those lines. I'd rather be pushing my data through someone else's big tubes than my own... its a lot cheaper that way.
Good luck finding a 107000000kbps stream ;)
Well, I might be able to find a 25MB/s stream ;) and that's good enough for me.

Re:The problem is... (3, Informative)

NerveGas (168686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321764)

Most hard disk drives transfer on the order of 25MB/s

Maybe you should upgrade that machine you bought four years ago. :-)

A lot of drives today can write at twice that speed, and read even faster. I've got an external firewire 800 drive (a single drive, not one of the RAIDs-in-a-box setups) that can write at a little over 60 MB/s. Your point is, of course, still valid... few users are even able to make use of a gigabit - or sometimes even half of that.

Re:The problem is... (-1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321824)

no, he is correct. what you plebs fail to understand is most HD's lie about their transfer speeds. they use a cache to get a BURST speed of 60mbs, but that quickly falls away to less them 25. yes that's right, BURST SPEED. obviously burst speed does not apply to steaming things which are a sustainted hd write/read. and before some little smartass pops up and says oh yes but scsi.. NO. most people don't have fucking scsi's.

Re:The problem is... (3, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321868)

My year old SATA Maxtor 7L300S0 can sustain ~ 50 megabytes / sec averaged over the entire surface of the disk. Don't speak again on this subject until you learn more about it.

Re:The problem is... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322014)

Yes, I have one example that nullifies your whole point, gee ma I am soooo smart.

Re:The problem is... (2)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322418)

He did say "on the order of"... so unless you've got a disk pushing 250MBps or 2500MBps, I wouldn't nitpick too much.

That fiber is pushing several orders of magnitude more data per second

The problem is... (1)

Blappo (976408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323748)

I beleive he said "most" and since we're being nitpicky dickheads, do you think "most" hard drives are like yours, or older, slower drives that are near his estimate?

Don't speak on ANY subject until you're less snotty.

Re:The problem is... (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322548)

MacBook Pro. 7200rpm 100GB Seagate. 41MB/s sustained until the cows come home. It's a *laptop* disk.

Any decent SATA disk in a desktop should give you 50MB/s sustained. I have a two-disk RAID 0 in mine that will do 103MB/s. No, it's not a burst. I can write 250 GB at a time at that speed. Check out some 2004 hardware before you speak...

Re:The problem is... (1)

consolidatedbord (689996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321950)

Way to kill the guy's joke. Just let him enjoy his +2 funny. :-P

Re:The problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321964)

This fiber transfer is applicable only for supercomputing links and Internet backbones.

Mod parent: (Score:5, duh, no shit - really?)

Re:The problem is credibility of Siemens (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323022)

Even if the report is true it does not descibe any major feat - no reason to get excited then.

But if what one can hear in German media about Siemens corruption is at least partially true, then one may start having serious doubts whether the results are real or the report is bogus 'cause it was bought by money saved in e.g. BenQ Mobile [wikipedia.org] disaster (more details only in german version of the article I am afraid). For those that missed the story: Simens sold its mobiles making division (together with people) to chinese and let such new company go bust. It was much cheaper and faster (and thus even cheaper) than laying people off.

Re:The problem is credibility of Siemens (1)

OnlineAlias (828288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323656)

It is a huge feat. Its 107gb per second per channel. That means one can layer on multiple channels through a single fiber, for outrageous throughput. When many computers have to talk to many computers over a single run of fiber (say, like on the internet across intercontinental links) this kind of throughput is can be kind of important.

Re:Hooray! (3, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322098)

107 Gb/s sounds like a lot. How much is that in Metallica discographies/s?

Re:Hooray! (2, Informative)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322450)

About 110 Metallica discographies per second, according to a torrent I found, which lists it at 973 megabytes. That should be a new file transfer measurement. Md/s.

Re:Hooray! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322120)

Its like comparing the vagina of a 13 yo virgin girl to Pam Anderson.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322784)

the favorite pr0n!

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the company developing this technology is Siemens?

Re:Hooray! (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323888)

So maybe "Siemens" wasn't quite the word they were looking for?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321626)

attention lick them

Warning.. (-1, Troll)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321692)

Do not... repeat DO NOT... try to shave your balls with a "Gillette Fusion" razor (the one with five blades.)

Re:Warning.. (0, Offtopic)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321786)

Do not... repeat DO NOT... try to shave your balls with a "Gillette Fusion" razor (the one with five blades.)
Why? Not like anybody on /. has any use for them. Don't worry, you're not loosing anything usefull.

Re:Warning.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322368)

Do not... repeat DO NOT... try to shave your balls with a "Gillette Fusion" razor (the one with five blades.)
Why? Not like anybody on /. has any use for them.
The balls or the razor blades?

Re:Warning.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321792)

rookie. i bet you tried to use shaving cream. soap&water nutsack shaving FTW.

Re:Warning.. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321818)

Cooking oil works best. Soap and water evaporate, while sunflower or corn oil does not. You can take your time, and get each and every pubic hair.

Re:Warning.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322968)

Armin [wikipedia.org] , is that you?

Follow Up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321704)

Siemens spokesperson adamantly denies any links the corporation may have with the pornographic industry.

Fiber is Great but quite expensive still (2, Interesting)

vg30e (779871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321718)

I wonder if we will get higher speeds on copper or maybe just cheaper fiber interface cards. Fiber optic networking technology has always been fast, but I guess due to production quantities, it never seems to be as cheap to implement even in a Data center environment. I wonder if we will ever get to see fiber optic network interfaces that are close in price to the copper ones.

We run multiple cat6 cables as trunk links between our switches just because there are more ports to do so and it is cheaper to do those runs.

Re:Fiber is Great but quite expensive still (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321838)

huh? fiber isn't expensive when your talking data centers...

Re:Fiber is Great but quite expensive still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321938)

Is that why the cost is measured "per port"? Anyone that finances data centers knows the per port cost of fiber over copper, whether it's IP networking or SAN. This is known because the two mediums are fungible for many uses. Even the price of cables is dear.

The parent is right. Optical is costly, and it doesn't seem to matter how much they manufacture; that cost has a floor that is comparatively high.

Re:Fiber is Great but quite expensive still (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322212)

errr... I almost bet your switches are 4m appart. 10m? I've even say 20m. But not kms appart, which is what these systems are for.

Excellent, but... (1, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321736)

If this technology is proprietary (which it likely will be), the lock-in could be rather vicious, especially for the businesses that would likely be the first ones impacted, and when it does get around to the average citizen, they could give horrible service, drop people, restrict their bandwidth, etc- and they'd be able to get away with it because of the monopoly they'd get over the high speed.

Re:Excellent, but... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321902)

If sun would shine and it wasn't cloudy, this could be a warm day. I bet you didn't know that. Now, mod me insightful.

Re:Excellent, but... (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321926)

Huh?

So you're suggesting that Siemens AG will able to say "okay bend over" to everyone and his brother, because they're going to suddenly be solely in control of this technology, no less the rest of the global telecom industry, and everyone will put up with their asinine ways because bandwidth will fall from the skies like mana from heaven?

Suuuuure....

Here's how Siemens works: They make stuff and they sell stuff, and as much as they like to buy other companies, it's just not in their usual habit to buy all of the telecom companies everywhere, and at any rate, this tech is not likely to operate at half that rate in the real world.

And Windows Still Takes... (5, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321742)

...fifteen looong seconds to list the contents of a folder.

Re:And Windows Still Takes... (3, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322392)

Oh like you could even find batteries for that flashlight in fifteen seconds...

Re:And Windows Still Takes... (1)

Hemmer (967512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323388)

Vista takes even longer...

Upgrade costs? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321746)

How much effort and cost is involved with upgrading the current backbones to this standard? Can existing fibre be used? Especially all the "dark fibre" that was laid during the .com boom and AFAIK is still just sitting there unused to this day! If existing fibre can be kept only having to upgrade optical nodes could provide a relatively cheap upgrade to network bandwidth in the US at least?

Children of lock-in. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321780)

"The Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications"

I assume that's related to the institute that gave us the "proprietary" MP3?

Re:Children of lock-in. (4, Informative)

ahillen (45680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322716)

I assume that's related to the institute that gave us the "proprietary" MP3?

Well, if you want to call an MPEG-Standard "lock-in". I'm sure most users don't feel very "locked-in", it is probably the most widely supported digital audio standard, I would say. Sure, it is proprietary, and you have to pay license fees, but at least anyone can use it who wants it.

Nevertheless, you are wrong. It is not the same institute that gave you MP3. That was the Institute for Integrated Circuits in Erlangen (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/index.html [fraunhofer.de] ). This is the Heinrich-Hertz-Institute in Berlin (http://www.hhi.fraunhofer.de/english/ [fraunhofer.de] ). There are about 60 institutes of the Fraunhofer Society in Germany (http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/EN/profile/index.jsp [fraunhofer.de] ), with widely varying research topics. More info as usual on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:Children of lock-in. (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323568)

Yo, they are the same umbrella organisation that spend all the years of effort to develope the MP3 format.
You might know the after-the-faft knockoffs like LAME, but hey, copycats are everywhere.

How viable is it over longer distances? (2, Interesting)

presentt (863462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321798)

From the article:

sent it over a single optical fiber channel in a 100 mile-long (161-kilometre) U.S. network

After 100 miles, how much does the throughput degrade? The technology might be limited if, after 200, 500, or even 1000 miles, its speed drops significantly. Or does it reach a hub of some sort that re-sends the signal every 100 miles? I should admit now that I'm not very familiar with how large telecom networks are set up.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (4, Insightful)

MrJynxx (902913) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321968)

Telecom companies dont' usually have fiber that long because of the risk of breaks and really costly repair processes, it's not because of degradation. Also the distance doesn't really matter(remember, how do you think the contients are connected? single link fiber), because if it's a good cable the data should travel at the speed of light. It depends on the recieving ends how fast your can process it.

Also the infrastructure for telecom is quite large, you'd be surprised how much stuff is running underground.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (3, Insightful)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322126)

sigh... of course they usually have fiber, that's the only way you've got to carry those kind of bitrates! What do you think Verizon and AT&T are getting? CAT5e?
sigh... of course the distance matters, the higher the span length the higher the attenuation and dispersion!
sigh... if they say they can do 107Gb/s that's because they can fire up the laser on one side and get it with an acceptable bit error rate at the other side. These tests are not based on sending something to /dev/null!

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322960)

I am part of this infrastructure and I am not running. Not under the ground anyway.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323208)

Okay there seems to be some misinformation that I must correct here.

Distance is very very important in fibre systems. Distance causes attenuation (which affects the signal-to-noise ratio), polarisation mode dispertion, chromatic dispertion etc. All of these have a detrimental affect to the bit-error-rate at the reciever. All must be compensated for along the way. With long reach systems, intermediary nodes are required to regenerate the signal, amplify it, re-shape it, re-time it etc. In addition, lengths of special fibre may be used to compensate for the dispersion introduced by the channel (called, wait-for-it dispersion-compensating fibre).

And data does indeed travel at the speed of light, but this is slightly misleading - the speed of light in glass is less than it is in air.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (2, Interesting)

ZX3 Junglist (643835) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321996)

This figure of 100mi is actually quite good,
a general standard in the industry is in the order of 30mi of fiber before signal regeneration is necessary. This is a main reason why the US is not very well suited to fiber octics transmissions in the way a smaller countries like germany or netherlands are. It's not the cost of running fiber, but the cost of maintaining sites and equipment to provide a long distance (cross-country?) signal.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322174)

What general standard? Nowaday it's pretty common to have 400..500km without electrical regeneration, and certain systems go all the way up to 2500km. Either way, how else are you going to carry traffic?

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323652)

The last quote I was given was, "We haven't found a theoretical maximum for single-mode fiber yet, because nobody manufactures a spool long enough."

For practical purposes, it comes down to the amount of dB loss due to refraction in angled pulls and (the big one) splice quality in your run. Each splice, fusion or mechanical, introduces some level of loss.

Re:How viable is it over longer distances? (3, Informative)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322376)

The bitrate ("speed") is always the same, no matter the distance. What changes is the bit error rate, which is proportional to the distance. For this particular test they defined a certain bit error rate as acceptable (don't really know which, 10^-15, 10^-16?) and when they say they did 107Gbps over 100km it means they've got the signal on the other side with a bit error rate low or equal to the defined one. When the bit error rate it just too high, you need to electrically regenerate the signal, which is almost like having a "normal" receiver and a "normal" transmitter (i.e. a diode and a laser, more or less) back-to-back. Sometimes you don't need to regenerate, but just need to give the signal a boost, in which case you'll set up some optical amplifiers along the way. Fun stuff really, specially when you get to the part if you want to boost up the signal in one direction of the fiber then you shoot a high power laser in the other direction.

So, if Microsoft Zune uses this technology... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17321810)

Then Steve Ballmer can say something like "I can squirt Siemens"

Thats nothing (1)

Swimport (1034164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321858)

A dump truck for of DVDs does at least 5 Terra-bytes a second.

Re:Thats nothing (2, Insightful)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322012)

... Imagine the Blue-ray version! /// ...Imagine the dual-sided Blue-ray version! /// ...Imagine a bewolf.. no wait that doesn't apply, unless it's in Russia.

Re:Thats nothing (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322190)

Sounds logic, until you figure you have to burn those DVDs first :)

Tacky joke... (5, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321972)

Record?

Given the amount of information DNA encodes... that there's, what, a complete set in every single sperm?... I think my Siemen can squirt more than 107Gbps of data per second down "a series of interconnected pipes" than their Siemens can.

Of course, that's of minimal practical use as a) Those are burst figures, I'm damned if I can sustain them and b) I read Slashdot which means my odds of finding a compatible interface are pretty minimal.

Re:Tacky joke... (1)

xebecv (1027918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322138)

Dude, I bet you cannot shoot as far as they did, you have to do a lot of training for this.

Re:Tacky joke... (3, Funny)

alanwj (242317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322454)

Given the amount of information DNA encodes... that there's, what, a complete set in every single sperm?... I think my Siemen can squirt more than 107Gbps of data per second down "a series of interconnected pipes" than their Siemens can.
The bandwidth of a penis [everything2.com] is estimated at 15,600 tb/s.

Re:Tacky joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322878)

The latency is also rather high due to both travel time and "preparation time."

Re:Tacky joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323172)

And then there's the whole virus/trojan issue...

Re:Tacky joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323786)

Bounce it off a latex firewall.

Re:Tacky joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323964)

but you have to keep an open port. . .

Re:Tacky joke... (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323232)

There are apparently around 3 billion base pairs in our genome, each base pair has 4 states it can be in, which is the equivalent of 2 bits, so that's about 6 billion bits of information per sperm, times 5 million (iirc) ~= 3 TB.

On the other hand this is the one form of data transmission for which speed from the start of the transmission to the end is not a priority..

107Gbps is too slow... (1)

BurningPi (1032288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17321976)

They could decrease the time even more: just put the fibre plugs on the two machines side-by-side with a 1nm fibre cable connecting them (and overclock the comps to 50THz). That's talking MUCH faster. (Disclaimer: 50THz is Beyond recommended OC freq.)

That's a lot of DVDs (2, Insightful)

ksw2 (520093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322028)

Siemens said in a statement it had processed data using exclusively electrical means at 107 gigabits per second -- roughly two full DVDs per second [...]

Damn, I can barely keep up with the 5 DVDs at a time I get from Netflix.

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322400)

How it this insighful?...

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (1)

snutte (554053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322634)

Correction, "That's alot of pr0n." ;)

107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (2, Informative)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322170)

I really don't know why they express download speeds in such an outlandish way. End users do not "gigabits" ...gigglebits, maybe, but not gigabits... for anything, they use kB, MB, & GB.

107Gb/s = "107 gigabits per second"
13,696 MB/s = "13,696 megabytes per second"
13.375 GB/s = "13.375 gigabytes per second"

Source:
http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/?input_amount=107&i nput_units=gigabits&notation=legacy [matisse.net]

Divide by 8 to get the number that makes sense. The "little b" stands for bits, and there are 8 bits per byte; the "big B" stands for byte.

1B = 8b.

The byte is the amount of data you could store on a single coin if you had a code worked out placing it either heads up or heads down. Ones and zero's.

Source:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130 [theonion.com] :-)

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322262)

Umm, maybe because bandwidth is ALWAYS denoted in bits not bytes.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (2, Informative)

TopSpin (753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322588)

End users do not

End users routinely use multiples of bits per second. Some examples; modems 1200/2400/9600/56k b/s, SATA 1.5/3.0 Gb/s, USB 480 Mb/s, Firewire 400/800 Mb/s, Ethernet 10/100/1000 Mb/s, 802.11b 11 Mb/s, etc.

Using bytes introduces too much ambiguity when discussing line capacity. In real communications bytes are often encoded (8B/10B) or are accompanied by (a possibly configurable number of) error correction bits. Higher level protocols add effectively arbitrary amounts of overhead. People who sell capacity aren't going to attempt to promise some number of JPEGs/s via HTTP; they can't know how your use case will actually perform. Siemens labs are certainly not going to deviate from the well characterized and correct practice when promoting their latest work.

It is convenient to convert between line rates and amounts of storage. An easy rule of thumb; 1Gb/s is good for about 100MiB/s. The math says more MiB/s, but usually the people who have to care are dealing with protocols that rob ~15% of this capacity for framing, error correction, security, etc. 1Gb/s -> 100MiB/s errors on the safe side.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323998)

Although what you say is true, it does not change the bottom line: bytes and bits are interchangeable measures of the same thing. If potentially inefficient high level protocols, parity bits and SSL are taking that 15% from bytes per second then they're also taking 15% from bits per second.

Right? :-)

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (4, Insightful)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322714)

The byte is the amount of data you could store on a single coin if you had a code worked out placing it either heads up or heads down. Ones and zero's.

almost

The bit is the amount of data you could store on a single coin if you had a code worked out placing it either heads up or heads down. Ones and zero's. A byte would therefore need 8 coins.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323072)

Amazing. I can't believe I mistyped it, but you're right. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd hate to misinform people.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

dtzWill (936623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322994)

Good point, and I agree. However:

The byte is the amount of data you could store on a single coin if you had a code worked out placing it either heads up or heads down. Ones and zero's.
A bit is the one or the zero, or the 'heads' or 'tails' in your example. And as you correctly stated, a byte is 8 bits.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323726)

true true. ty. see above. :-)

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322998)

I don't know where you're from, but around here, bytes are only dealt with in storage. Audio, video, networks, and pretty much everywhere it's applicable and correct, bits are used. As they should be. If you sell someone a 500KB/sec connection, they'll expect their IE download window to say 500KiB/sec. What you'd actually be getting, after PDU overhead and error correction, assuming that you'll even be able to max it out, would probably be closer to 450KB/sec. That's false advertisement. If they sell you a 5Mbps connection, you don't have the percieved promise of a fixed (in lack of more current terms) Baud rating on your connection, and as long as the ISP is shovelling (2^20)*5 bits down your pipe, no amount of overhead or errors can make them responsible for your final, application layer download speeds. Replacing a sensible measure with a dumbed down illogical one isn't a noble endeavour, it's perpetuating ignorance, and do you really want your consumers to remain ignorant considering the cost of user support?

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323164)

I'm not sure if this makes sense to you, but here goes:

Bytes and bits are interchangeable. They measure the same thing. It makes no sense to say that "one of them is false advertising, and therefore the other should be used." Any measure of download speed that can be expressed in terms of one of the units can be expressed in the other, and with absolutely no loss of accuracy.

For example, if they started selling gasoline by the "kilo-fluid ounce", people might be asking "how much gasoline is in them yar 'kilo fluid ounce?'". Since nobody ever uses a kilo fluid ounce for anything else, there would be no real-world frame of reference to make it meaningful. That doesn't mean there would be "false advertising", as you phrase it, it simply means that the unit of measure would lead people towards ignorance of the actual amount of gasoline being bought/sold.

You could look it up and find out, but it might be a pain in the posterior.

I think they should be measuring line speed terms of meaningful units, so that people would be able to say "in the ideal, a 1GB download should take x minutes, give or take, and I know that due to my line speed being consistent[, and expressed in clear terms]."

Basically it boils down to this: File downloads are "sized up" in terms of the size of the file and the time it takes to download. File size is measured in kilo- mega- and giga- (sometimes even terra-) bytes. Therefore it makes better sense to measure line speed in terms of kilo- mega- and/or giga- (and, eventually, terra-) bytes.

THAT way, people would have a better instinct for how much time downloads would take.

LOL. I guess it's not that important though. :-)

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323444)

I'm afraid that you're not getting the point here.

To build on your gasoline analogy, expressing connections in byte ratings is the equivalent of stating a "miles per gallon" value for a car under normal conditions, not maximum potential. While it's fairly safe to assume that this value will be somewhat accurate for a car, it's also important to note that these numbers are calculated in typical driving conditions. Internet traffic, however, has extremely varying overhead, and connections will always be rated according to maximum potential, as this is the only reasonable way to rate them.

Expressing connections in general term such as "bytes per second" is too ambiguous for a user who expects that one byte transmitted across the wire is one byte of formatted data received. This assumption is common, and very far from accurate. When dealing in bit values, things become less ambiguous. The average user does not rate storage in bits, so if you say "100kbps" to a user, they'll ask "how fast will that let me download songs?". If you said "2MBps" to that same user, they'd say "hey neat, half a song a second", because they deal with megabytes on their MP3 players. What happens when they really only get an effective 1.5MBps download speed due to overhead? They complain.

Instead of dumbing down a rating affected by many variables that cannot all be guaranteed, I think it's more prudent to either educate the end-user, or let the professionals deal with the technical aspects.

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323882)

I understand your claimed advantage. However, I'm inclined to say that your claimed advantage is not a real advantage, at all.

Since bytes and bits are interchangeable measurements of the same thing, the only "advantage" you seem to claim is that by using bits instead of bytes the ISP can fail to meet user's expectations without it being recognized.

Since bytes and bits are interchangeable, if the ISP can state a reliable rate of bits per second, they can express the same reliable rate in terms of of bytes per second. If the user were going to complain about one, they could just as easily complain about the other, so long as they understood both means of expressing the DL rate.

Unless you're really just saying you think the user not knowing what their service actually provides (in MEANINGFUL terms) is a justified end in itself. I don't consider that an end in itself, though, and I doubt you do either.

To carry the analogy, if the gas stations started selling gas by the 1/13th fluid ounce to cause difficulty in determining actual gas mileage (to avoid complaints), I think you might then understand what I'm saying. I'm glad they don't to that at gas stations. I would like it if they didn't do it with connection speeds. :-)

Re:107Gb/s = 13,696 MB/s = 13.375 GB/s (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323550)

Engineers and scientists use bits and symbols. Take a look at any text on the mathematical theory of communications. Bytes are ambiguous (see octet) and are at a higher level of abstraction. While we're at it, k = 10**3, M = 10**6, G = 10**9.

what do I care? (1)

brainspank (515274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322428)

I really couldn't care less until I can get greater than 486kbps over my ~17,000 foot link to my CO. You can transmit your butt to Uranus at the speed of light and it isn't going to make me thing you're some kind of super hero. That would still be cool though.

-bs

Re:what do I care? (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323474)

You should care because this kind of pipe (or tube) is used on backbones. A fast backbone ensures that you and 30 million others just like you can all download pr0n, browse MySpace and play WoW ath the same time at your full local link speed.

BIG FREAKING DEAL!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322584)

I dont care if they can do 2 trillions GPBS - try to offer 50Mbps to everyone home,
and only cost $19.95 a month, and I'll be really impress

This FP for GNNA?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322684)

What OS? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322846)

I wonder what operating system they used for this. NetBSD?

Re:What OS? (1)

rtyall (960518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17322932)

OS/2 Warp-speed edition?

Re:What OS? (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323020)

I wonder what operating system they used for this. NetBSD?NetBSD favors portability over speed, and benchmarks demonstrate this. Linux tends to win the benchmark game, and NetBSD is one of the worst BSDs in this aspect.

Maybe they used it, but I don't see why they would.

Re:What OS? (2, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323354)

NetBSD was used to set a lot of transfer speed records. See, for example, this story on BSD News [bsdnews.com] .

Re:What OS? (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323486)

I wouldn't be surprised if no OS was used at all and the bandwidth was measured by some sort of hardware network analyzer taking data directly from the cable.

Also, this is probably raw data throughput, without any protocols as overhead on top of the payload: i.e. the entire Ethernet frame size including headers was taken as the basis for what is considered "data transfered" (- if Ethernet was even used...)

Technology anyone? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322888)

Why do I see no post above my threshold about:
fast photodiodes
fast multiplexers
GaAs-transistors
fibre amplifiers (this is for the post about connecting continents)
?

They say they do it electrically, so they need to have a photodiode with 200 GHz bandwidht,
compare that with the diode in your DVD!

Re:Technology anyone? (1)

2.246.1010.78 (721713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323234)

well, the HHI has incredibly fast photo diodes... you can buy a 100GHz PD for less than $20000 from them...

NTT in Japan reached 111Gbps! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323366)

optics.org / FibreSystems Europe reports: "Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) of Japan has demonstrated optical transmission of 14Tbps over a single fibre 160km long. The transmission consisted of 140 channels of 111Gbps each using complex DWDM techniques."
107Gbps... pfft... yesterdays news. :)

LoC/sec (1)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323538)

Uh, this summary is missing the obligatory Library of Congresses/sec.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?