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!

Researchers Break Internet Speed Records

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the hey-you-yeah-you-using-firefox-pull-over dept.

The Internet 140

MosiMosi wrote to let us know about a new development on the Internet2 front. Researchers in Tokyo have advanced the speed of the network, breaking records twice in two days back in December of last year. "On Dec. 30 [researchers] sent data at 7.67 gigabits per second, using standard communications protocols. The next day, using modified protocols, the team broke the record again by sending data over the same 20,000-mile path at 9.08 Gbps. That likely represents the current network's final record because rules require a 10 percent improvement for recognition, a percentage that would bring the next record right at the Internet2's current theoretical limit of 10 Gbps."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

Why is the theoretical limit 10 Gbps? (4, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889303)

Don't they have redundant paths? Can't they use ECMP? (I'm assuming that the "limit" is referring to 10 Gbps max link speed)

Re:Why is the theoretical limit 10 Gbps? (5, Funny)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889571)

I am sorry, the budget was cut and we had to eliminate the redundant paths. It was too costly and as such we expect you figure out how to get the full 10Gbps out of the single T1 line. Please have the proposal ready by tomorrow, and remember that any solution you come up with should cost no more than your time. Oh, and we are a Windows only shop so you can not suggest OSS solutions.

Thank you,
    Your Management.

Re:Why is the theoretical limit 10 Gbps? (1)

mythar (1085839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890691)

one word: marketing.

But... (5, Funny)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889307)

But can they beat a station wagon full of backup tapes (or DVDs or whatever) yet?

Re:But... (2, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889447)

Clearly, they must have used very sturdy tubes for this project. Therefore, you could take those same tubes and create tunnels to cross the oceans, which would allow a station wagon full of DVDs to drive around the world. Therefore, it will *always* be impossible to beat the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes or DVDs, because the station wagon will just rise with the tide.

Buy now! (1)

ATMD (986401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891861)

The problem is friction. What they've done now is applied our new network smoothening paste, TubeLube!
Preorder your shipment today!

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

ect5150 (700619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889531)

Across a 20,000-mile path, I'm starting to bet on the network.

Never underestimate... (5, Funny)

Daath (225404) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890013)

*Never* underestimate an Airbus A380-800F. It will carry a 150 tonne payload at 0.85 mach, 6500 miles before refueling. A Hitachi 7K1000 1TB drive weighs in at 700 g. That's around 210,000 TB. Flight at .85 mach will take about 30 hours, let's give them 10 hours for refuelling and maintenance. That's 40 hours. If I'm not mistaken, that's around 60 GB per second. What's that? Around half a TBps?

Beat THAT Internet2!

Feel free to correct my "calculations", as they weren't any such thing! :)

Airbus wins (4, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890127)

But the calculations do need correction. :) 210,000 TB in 40 hours = 1,458 GB/s or 1.458 TB/s.

Re:Airbus wins (2, Funny)

Hossicle (945360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892019)

During a recent attempt I got at least a transfer rate 2.1 TB/s through a common phone line.

Unfortunately the data was just a big string of Zeros...

Does that count? Great compression rate too!

Re:Never underestimate... (1)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890543)

Where a 40 hour rate to get 210,000 TB of information sounds good you have a slight flaw. It'd also take 40 hour rate to get 1 byte of information. Which as I download allot more things in the rate of the later I think I'd get bored waiting around...
---
Contronyms: for people who are chuffed by antonyms
---

Re:Never underestimate... (0, Offtopic)

timmyd (108567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890637)

But did you count the time it takes to load and unload the data off of those disk drives?

Re:Never underestimate... (0, Redundant)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890785)

Ahh, but you have to make time to get the data on and off of the tapes. After all this is a computer to computer transfer.

Re:Never underestimate... (4, Funny)

woodhouse (625329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891017)

Not bad, but I'm not sure I'd want to play CS with that kind of ping.

Re:Never underestimate... (0, Redundant)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891219)

The plane might be able to lift 210,000 drives, but my gut tells me that you'd have a hell of a time getting them all to fit in there...

Confusing bandwidth with latency... (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891373)

Everyone keeps confusing bandwidth with latency. The bandwidth is the amount of time it takes the data to travel its own length. The latency is the time it takes for the data to get from source to destination.

At 0.85 mach, a A380 travels its own length in about 1/4 second. So the bandwidth of a A380 is 6720 Pbps. You only need 881,832 A380s to maintain that bandwidth over a 20000 mile course. How to get a 150 ton payload onto or off of an A380 in 0.25 seconds is left as an excercise for the network engineer.

Assume 60 mph (2, Funny)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890019)

If we assume 60mph average speed for that trip, than a 20,000 mile trip will take 333 hours and 20 minutes or 1,200,000. At 9 GB/s, the network will have transferred 10,800 TB in that amount of time. Assuming dual-layer blu-ray DVDs, each with 50 GB (0.05 TB) of data, the station wagon will have to carry more than 216,000 DVDs for it to win. If each DVD takes up about 3.6 cubic inches (0.1x6x6) or 0.002 cubic feet, the station wagon will need to carry 432 cubic feet of DVDs.

I think the network wins this one.

Re:Assume 60 mph (2, Funny)

fireylord (1074571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890797)

ugh, imperial measurements. _so_ undigital.

Re:Assume 60 mph (1)

crazygamer (952019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890857)

Get a life....

Re:Assume 60 mph (1)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891567)

You must be new here.

Re:Assume 60 mph (1)

HUADPE (903765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891147)

If you use slip covers, the station wagon might have a chance. Probably ~.75 in^3

Re:Assume 60 mph and bytes not bits (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891221)

9.08 (gigabits per second) * ((333 hours) plus (20 minutes)) = 1.29890442 petabytes
not 10,800 TB.

So it's ~54 cubic feet which would fit in "2008 Volkswagen Jetta SportsWagen has 66.9ft^3 of storage space"

Or for more $$$

2gb microSD card 15 mm × 11 mm × 0.7 mm or 1/243,242 cubic foot.
2 * 243,242 GBytes = 475.082031 terabytes
So 3 cubic feet gives you 1.39 petabytes.
and 66.9ft^3 = 31 petabytes or ~23 times faster.

I stand by my calculations (this time, at least) (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891901)

333.3 hours = 20,000 minutes = 1.2 million seconds.
1.2 million seconds x 9 GB/s = 10.8 PB.
1.2 million seconds x 9.08 GB/s = 10.896 PB.
Where are you getting 1.29890442 PB from?

Re:But... (5, Interesting)

presarioD (771260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889565)

But can they beat a station wagon full of backup tapes (or DVDs or whatever) yet?

Hmmm, let's see: Let's have maximum capacity DVD's at 9GB and for the sake of this exercise let's say the station wagon's capacity is 1000 DVDs so we have 9000GB moving around. Let's say the 20,000 mile distance will be covered at top speed (breaking speed limits in all states) at 100miles/h that results in 200 hours of deliverance time so:

station wagon data speed = 9000 GB / 200 hours = 45 GB / hour = 0.0125 GB / sec = 0.1 Gbit / sec

Nope the Japanese win!

Re:But... (1)

goddidit (988396) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889615)

It's all about pipelining the station wagons.

Re:But... (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889655)

0.1 Gbit/sec is still a whole lot faster than my Comcast connection...where can I sign up for the station wagon?

Re:But... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18889743)

Yeah, but the station wagon has MUCH higher latency (or is Comcast that bad?)

Re:But... (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889911)

I can deal with the latency...I just can't wait to see the look on my friends faces when a station wagon pulls up to my apartment to deliver 1000 DVDs!

Re:But... (1)

borizz (1023175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891069)

Genoot u van het vertalen van mijn handtekening?
Nee.

Re:But... (2, Funny)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889937)

That's just the fake wood paneling causing too much air friction. Rip that stuff out and you'll get 0.10000100 Gbps, no prob.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18890065)

The article was about bandwidth, not latency. What you've proven is that the latency is about 200 hours (admittedly not ideal, especially when playing an FPS), but you've said nothing about bandwidth. Consider, for example, you could have a convoy of station wagons going down the highway. If we're truly measuring bandwidth, then the number of station wagons should have no effect.

The bandwidth problems associated with a station wagon full of DVDs, to me, involve: burning the DVDs, putting them in their cases, carrying them out to the station wagon, parking the station wagon, carrying the DVDs to the destination computer, putting them in the DVD player tray and reading them. These are the factors that are constant with respect to the number of station wagons and the latency.

Ignoring the maximum read/write capabilities of the computers involved, I think the bottlenecks would be physically opening the DVD jewel cases, putting them in the DVD player, and taking them back out. Probably this would take about 10 seconds per disc? That gives a bandwidth of .9GB/sec (7Gbit/sec).

Sadly the Japanese still win :(

This is actually quite frightening. The bandwidth these guys are playing with is about on par with the bandwidth of DVDs, even when totally ignoring how long it takes to read from or write to the DVDs.

Re:But... (5, Funny)

Obyron (615547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890093)

Au contraire!

Your capacity estimate is way, way too low. My DVD test samples can get 15 discs in a space 1"x5"x5" (e.g., 25in^3). There are 1728in^3 in a cubic foot, which translates to about 69 such stacks, for a total of 1035 discs per cubic foot. With its rear seat folded down the 2008 Volkswagen Jetta SportsWagen has 66.9ft^3 of storage space (source [leftlanenews.com] ). We'll call it 67ft^3 for the sake of the math, and assume that you've crammed a few discs in the glovebox. This brings us to a total of 69,345 discs in our datawagon. If we use dual layer blu-ray discs at 50gb/disc that comes to 3.07 petabytes (x10^15). I'll use your 200 hour delivery time, which means we have an overall speed of 269.09GB/s (3467250000000000 bytes / 12000 seconds). You can keep your internet2, although I -will- cede that it gets better gas mileage.

I would like to posit a new theorum: Advances in storage space and vehicle capacity will always increase such that a sufficiently well-fueled station wagon will have faster throughput than the latest advances in network architecture.

Re:But... (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890501)

If you are going to use throughput it probably gets a bit scary; raw bandwidth, sure, but I can click send faster than you can burn your blu-ray discs. Your throughput is limited to some multiple of the fastest burner money can buy. If you magic 10x blu-ray burners into existence, you would only need a dozen or so to keep up with the network(of course, you have to go way, way faster than the network because you have all that dead time while you bring the discs over to your readers at the other end of the transmission). And they did it with a good installed circuit, which may or may not represent the latest advances in network architecture.

Here's a good theorem though: People care a lot more about latency than bandwidth.

Re:But... (1)

vonsneerderhooten (254776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891883)

exactly. Transporting it there is one thing. Reading it back is an entirely different animal. The beauty of networks is that theyre so goddamned direct. it's just disk>network>disk instead of disk>disc>car>disk. And what if you've got wikipedia in the trunk? What do you do when someone edits a page?

Re:But... (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890507)

Which is great until you factor in error rate/recovery time(1 bad sector on disk = 1 new trip. yes you could burn parity data too, but then you need to copy a lot more data at once).
Then theres rate it takes to burn and store disks, and get them all back into a computer on the other end (disk read rate + rate to unpack and move N thousand disks).

Networks already much faster once you factor that in.

And of course theres the fact that this multi-gigabit link doesn't need 3.07 petabytes to reach maximum speed. If you only had a 20 gigs or so to move around, this would do it in seconds instead of hours. Then theres streaming multiple angles of hidef video..

Hey, if everyone else can take the joke too far by bringing math in, someone should at least get to defend the other side.

Re:But... (1)

BlueCollarCamel (884092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891361)

What about double sided discs? :P

Re:But... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891983)

What's the power rating of the entire network path they took? Including point 1 plus point 2 plus every router on the way, I'd like to see how the kWh consumed of this transmission compares to the kWh consumed on the datawagen (using biodiesel or veggie oil of course). If the datawagen were 100% plug-in electric, what would its terabit-per-second-watt come out to? Interesting questions, all. I'd do the math myself, but don't feel like looking up the data :)

Re:But... (3, Informative)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891185)

Hmmm, let's see: Let's have maximum capacity DVD's at 9GB and for the sake of this exercise let's say the station wagon's capacity is 1000 DVDs so we have 9000GB moving around. Let's say the 20,000 mile distance will be covered at top speed (breaking speed limits in all states) at 100miles/h that results in 200 hours of deliverance time so:

station wagon data speed = 9000 GB / 200 hours = 45 GB / hour = 0.0125 GB / sec = 0.1 Gbit / sec

You are mixing up latency with bandwidth. The latency (round trip time) of the connection here is 400 hours. The bandwidth (i.e. data rate) is the amount of data divided by the time it takes for the data to travel its own length.

At 100 mph, a station wagon will travel its length in 0.14 seconds. So the bandwidth of a stationwagon packed with 9000 GB of data is about 550 Tbps.

Given a train of station wagons running at 100mph, you could sustain that. Of course with 1440000000 ms ping times, I wouldn't try playing Battlefield 2 over that connection.

Seriously, the distinction is important. If you included transit time when calculating bandwidth, the theoretical maximum bandwidth for a 12,000 bit packet on a 20,000 mile path would be 112 kbps.

Re:But... (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891383)

"Of course with 1440000000 ms ping times, I wouldn't try playing Battlefield 2 over that connection."

Obviously never had Verizon, have you?

Re:But... (2, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889667)

Let's see... A DVD has 3.76e10 bits. If you drove 20,000 miles at 70mph, that would take 1.03e6 seconds. So each DVD in the wagon would give you about 37Kb/s bandwidth. So you'd need about 248,000 DVDs in the car. My little postal scale here says that a DVD in a paper sleeve weighs in at 20g, so you'd need almost 5000kg of DVDs, which is probably too much for a station wagon. You could probably manage the task with BluRay or HD-DVD, though.

Re:But... (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890431)

And this doesn't include the time to get the data from the drive to the network (burning the disks), or get them in the transport medium (load the car), and then unload and put each disk in the drive and remove the data at the other end. Each of those data transfers alone would be slower than this rate of copy. You'd have to seriously parallel copy the data, and get a much faster transport, like a jet to compete with physical transport over this distance. Of course, nothing but data center hardware would be able to keep up with this sort of transfer at either end.

Re:But... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891203)

Which brings to mind an excellent question: Why burn the disks at all? Why not just disconnect the drive and put that in your station wagon?

Re:But... (1)

markh1967 (315861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892037)

Don't forget that you also need to add the time taken to write and read those 248,000 DVDs as well. "Insert DVD #148,256 and press any key to continue..."

Re:But... (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889769)

How many DVDs can you carry in a station wagon? 50000? That would be about 400 TB of data. At 9 Gbps they could push about 80 TB per day. They're pushing that data 20000 miles, which is farther than a station wagon can go in 5 days, so it's Internet2 FTW. Even for short trips I think the station wagon would lose once you add in the media transfer time, unless of course data on DVD was what you wanted anyway.

(My calculations suggest you'd hit the weight limit of the station wagon before filling it up with DVDs. Is there some more mass-efficient storage medium?)

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889869)

Is there some more mass-efficient storage medium?)

My guess for the best today is MicroSD. It would be horrendously expensive, but you can get 2GB MicroSD cards. You'd have to amass a lot of MicroSD cards to have the same mass as a CD and it takes only five of them to out-store a dual layer DVD.

It would take some 25 of them to equal a Blu-Ray disc. Not sure which would win that competition.

Re:But... (1)

insane_coder (1027926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890125)

If you take into the account the time it takes to burn all those DVDs, then yes I think the storage media in a vehicle method was beaten a long time ago.

Internet Causes Amnesia? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18889313)

9 Gbps! What is the human visual nerve bandwidth? Much less I think. It is becoming our new external vision. Good or bad? It's tough to say. I think it is good, but who knows... ;)

From the "Internet Causes Amnesia?":

"..the brain uses sight as the external memory, so it adapted not to spend effort to memorize what it is seeing."

http://thedialogs.org/2007/04/19/internet-causes-a mnesia/ [thedialogs.org]

almost but not quite (2, Informative)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889327)

9.08 * 1.1 = 9.988

Down the tubes. (1)

FMota91 (1050752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889333)

It's spring, so water comes down the tubes faster.

and so when your staff sends you an e-Mail... (5, Funny)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889387)

So with this newer, faster internet, when your staff sends you an e-Mail at 10 AM Friday, you don't have to wait over the weekend to get it?

Re:and so when your staff sends you an e-Mail... (3, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889421)

Depends on if it gets to take the first class or economy class tubes.

Senator Stevens ... (1)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889489)

Senator Stevens will be so happy to hear that they can speed up the tubes.

Re:Senator Stevens ... (1)

milgr (726027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889993)

Lubricating the tubes with flat water [slashdot.org] really sped them up.

Re:and so when your staff sends you an e-Mail... (4, Funny)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889589)

when your staff sends you an e-Mail at 10 AM Friday

Your staff doesn't send email. They send internets.

Re:and so when your staff sends you an e-Mail... (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889855)

I checked the quote before I posted, but then forgot it...but I guess, even trying for cheap humor on Slashdot, I couldn't make myself write something as stupid as "send an internets to me"

Re:and so when your staff sends you an e-Mail... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891751)

but I guess, even trying for cheap humor on Slashdot, I couldn't make myself write something as stupid as "send an internets to me"

On Soviet Slashdot, we send Internets to YOU.

Limit (1)

Ginger_Chris (1068390) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889485)

Why is there a limit, surely they can just build wider pipes?

Re:Limit (1)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890117)

wider tubes, you meant?

Improvement (3, Funny)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889507)

On Dec. 30 [researchers] sent data at 7.67 gigabits per second, using standard communications protocols
Yes, the internet seems to be getting faster bit by bit.

Ha ha ha *snort* I beat myself up.

tubes? (3, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889509)

Maybe if they moved from a series of tubes to parallel tubes, they'd get a higher current flow...

We need a real alternative to the internet. (3, Interesting)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889513)

A backbone not owned by the phone companies would reduce prices. An alternative that that doesn't rely on the robberbaron phone and cable companies for the last mile(wimax?).

Something that allows for video like Iptv would be big.

It would be more disruptive than the current net because then you could attend classes from home.

This would be great for the economy too.

Re:We need a real alternative to the internet. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889915)

If you could just actually use multicast reliably on the internet, you could save an absolute assload of bandwidth, especially with intelligent caching, and/or short start delays so that you only have to distribute a maximum of (length of film / length of start delay) streams.

Re:We need a real alternative to the internet. (1)

ckdake (577698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890205)

So who is going to pay for this alternative? Some of the costs include: -land right of way (railroad companies became telco companies and have right of way between major cites which lets them bury the fiber where they want) (ever priced buying rights to a 10 foot wide strip of land from Atlanta to Dallas?) -burying the fiber -routers that go at these speeds (Ever priced a router that will do a few 10GbE interfaces at wire speed?) -power/cooling/squarefeet/etc in datacenters -people do do and manage all of this This also brings us to: -Isn't whoever does all of this going to want to make money off of it? -Won't multiple providers running links over multiple paths mean higher costs for everyone due to the infrastructure costs involved?

Re:We need a real alternative to the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891733)

Oh, yea, a NEW BACKBONE sounds really cheap. I'm sure you could dig some trenches and lay a new fiber backbone from LA to NY in a couple weeks at most, maybe set you back a few thousand.

Boy, wouldn't you look like the real smartypants then?

Hint: The astronomical costs involved in laying fiber would mean that any new backbones would be subsidized by the early adopters, which means no money saved. Even 'lighting up' existing dark fiber is expensive, as it requires a lot of infrastructure. Quite amazingly, the companies best equipped to build/maintain these networks are... Telcos!!!

Obligatory Simpsons quote (5, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889529)

Marge: "Does anyone need that much porn?"

Homer (drooling): "One million times faster...."

Gee I'm impressed... (3, Interesting)

spydum (828400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889563)

I'd be more impressed if they DIDN'T modify the TCP stack, and used the PUBLIC Internet. Internet2 is far from a real production network. I'm sure if I ran 40,000 miles of fiber and interconnected two idle routers and modified my TCP stack to handle massive window sizes and other tweaks, I could get nearly the full line rate, at twice the distance.

Re:Gee I'm impressed... (3, Funny)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890061)

I'm sure if I ran 40,000 miles of fiber and interconnected two idle routers and modified my TCP stack to handle massive window sizes and other tweaks, I could get nearly the full line rate, at twice the distance.
And if you had, we'd be talking about it.

Re:Gee I'm impressed... (1)

porpnorber (851345) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891957)

Well, the article is spectacularly under-informative. In our experience (yeah, yeah, been there, done that, got an award at Supercomputing...), the hard part is the last few inches. It is (or I should say, 18 months ago it was - maybe by now you can get all the peripherals you need in PCIe?) hard to get more than a few Gbps in and out of a workstation. We ran about 4.5Gbps per direction across North America in '05, but it took three workstations at each end, essentially because DMA over PCI-X is in practise much more limiting than UDP/IP over lightpath.

But from TFA you can't tell: maybe the endpoints are rackfulls of dedicated hardware and they run multiple TCP streams run in parallel, in which case I have to agree that that doesn't seem like much of a trick at all. In any case, some tuning has to be forgiven: the bandwidth-delay product on these runs is on the order of a gigabit, and, well, your stack isn't tuned for that, out of the box.

As to running over the public Internet, been there, done that, too. As a consequence of some unscheduled maintenance, we got dumped onto the public 'net one day. What actually happens is, they decide you're a DOS attack and they block you! Surprise! Bad research project, no record!

This just in.. (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889673)

Internet2 has just gone even faster, breaking the speed of light.

An email has just been sent to a researcher on ARPANET in 1972, who unfortunately doesn't know what "v1@gr@" is or why he would want to "enlarge pens" with it.

eheheheeheheh damn you ! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889981)

you bastard

Re:This just in.. (1)

eimsand (903055) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890423)

That was easily the funniest thing I've read all day.

High quality movies! (5, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889697)

from TFA:

With the 10-fold increase, a high-quality version of the movie "The Matrix" could be sent in a few seconds rather than half a minute...

Efforts to make a high quality version of "The Matrix Revolutions" have not succeeded in any time frame.

Re:High quality movies! (1)

VinB (936538) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890453)

I disagree with the *initial* premise of a high-quality version of The Matrix.

Re:High quality movies! (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890813)

With the 10-fold increase, a high-quality version of the movie "The Matrix" could be sent in a few seconds rather than half a minute...

So... it's going a few seconds faster than a few seconds?

this is meaningless (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889709)

tell me how much it is in LOCPS (Libraries of Congress Per Second)

Re:this is meaningless (1)

Daath (225404) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890217)

I'd guess around 0.00005 of them per second... LC is supposed to be around 20 TB in digitized form.

Re:this is meaningless (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891153)

Is that all?

I wonder what the size of all of the knowledge that mankind has at this moment is?
6 billion people * 20TB = 12 x 10^10 TB = = 1.05553116 × 10^23 bits

so...

3,115,132 years to send a copy of the library of congress to everyone.

New Speed Record? (2)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889757)

There 9.06Gbps is a speed record???

Ummm, OC-192 is 9.6Gbps I think they are a little shy of the speed record. Maybe I missed something.

Re:New Speed Record? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890591)

IIRC they're talking about a goodput [wikipedia.org] speed record, not about line rates.

Re:New Speed Record? (4, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890599)

As I understand it, this is over one link. OC-192 is actually a series of OC-48 links bonded together.

Heck you can get yourself a nice 10gbit/sec line with 10 1gbit lines, ooh la lah

Tom

Re:New Speed Record? (1)

Zenzilla (793153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890669)

oc-192 is link bundled. I'm assuming this is over a single link.

Re:New Speed Record? (2, Informative)

ziegast (168305) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891239)

Ummm, OC-192 is 9.6Gbps I think they are a little shy of the speed record. Maybe I missed something.

Within a data center or a metro area, it's commercially viable to pump tens of gigabits per second of bits from point A to point B using many parallel fiber circuits between the two locations. What makes the Internet2 land speed record (http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/) interesting is adding distance to the problem by multiplying the speed times the distance. The unit of measurement they use is "terabit-meters per second" (Tbmps?). The current record is 272,400 Tbmps, or ~9Gbps over 30000km (1km=1000000m). The transfer rate is really a function of 1) latency adjustments in the data transfer protocol, 2) the minimum transfer speed capable between all points on the network (currently OC192=10Gbps), and 3) the speed of the sending and receiving computers. While OC192 might theoretically be 9.6Gbps, getting the various vendors
  switches on different continents to all send packets at line speed for a long period of time with minimal packet overhead can be challenging.

What makes this pointless, though, is that the sending and receiving equipment is in the same location. In their documentation [u-tokyo.ac.jp] they send the bits from a computer in Tokyo through Chicago through Amsterdam and back through Seattle to the same lab in Tokyo. It would be much easier to put a 10GigE fiber between the two machines, but that's not he "point" of the exercise.

Someone has to pay for this. Usually its the country's taxpayers or a company's stockholders.

I'd much rather see benchmarks for transferring N terabytes of real data from one site with lots of disks to another far-away site with lots of disks. Real companies can use that data for pontificating disaster recovery and content/database replication technologies. I'd reckon that Google can beat the multiple stream Internet2 LSR any day they want by pumping petabytes of data between its data centers over multiple 10GigE backbones. Andy Tanenbaum's (or Hal Stern's?) station wagon full of tapes is also a fine competitor.

-ez

Gee, no more speed records? (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889799)

Does this mean we won't be getting these bi-weekly updates on how Professor Wingwang from Xyzzy University has sent data at ridiculously high speeds over specialised networks using specialised hardware and specialised protocols?

It's interesting the first time you hear that somebody has sent data at 346363GiB/s or whatever, but there's only so many times you can nod and think "how nice for them" until you start wondering why you're not hearing anything about what's being done to prevent the incapacitation of that "Internet 1" thing the rest of us chug along on.

Re:Gee, no more speed records? (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889953)

Higher speed will be the cure. Just like standard government, the most effective way to fight traffic congestion is to build more and wider roads.

Imagine what the internet will be like where all spams only counted for 0.01% of the total bandwidth? "They simply cannot breed spammers fast enough to saturate the lines."

Re:Gee, no more speed records? (1)

Strilanc (1077197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890405)

I think you mean: Imagine the internet when spam consists of high-def videos involving enlargement.

Re:Gee, no more speed records? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891217)

It's really not that specialized. Pretty much every large university in Louisiana is hooked up to this same network, and it's not as if we're like the cutting edge of technology here. I'm not talking "a few big iron systems in a a secluded data center on the campuses of the large universities in Louisiana" I had access to Internet2 on my regular work PC as a junior systems administrator at Tulane, 5 years ago. Made downloading distro .isos much faster (granted the LAN only did 100Mbps, but if that's the worst of your bottleneck...) The start facility I work for now has a 10 Gig-E hook up too, but that is mostly for big iron research machines.

that's a lot of porn and spam (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18889845)

isn't it?

Here come the Library of Congress jokes (1)

had3z (1064548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890349)

in 3, 2, 1...

9 gigabits?! (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890427)

What the fuck is this Internet2 thing anyway? Some kind of big truck?

Re:9 gigabits?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18890503)

No, you noob. It's an even bigger truck.

Re:9 gigabits?! (1)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890623)

No, it's, it's a series of tubes.

Re:9 gigabits?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891115)

The tubes must really be clogged up today because that joke got old about six months ago. ;-)

Re:9 gigabits?! (1)

McFortner (881162) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891189)

Nah, just something Al Gore whipped up in his spare time....

This is great (1)

eimsand (903055) | more than 7 years ago | (#18890499)

This is great! Does this means that my personal internet will be okay even if you put enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material in your personal internet? (Weak attempt at Sen. Stevens joke)

no good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18890539)

until they stop shaping pr0n & p2p

And who is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18891263)

to clean up all these broken records ?

Litterers, y'r'all !

Pr0n (1)

TheLoneWolf071 (1063682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891649)

Ah.... finally pr0n at the speed of human.

faster than light speed? (1)

seven of five (578993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18891939)

According to my calc's, the fastest I can send one bit 20,000 miles is in 107 milliseconds. Now how do these yahoo's come up with 9 Gb/s??

Re:faster than light speed? (1)

Mr EdgEy (983285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18892139)

All of the data is sent in a chunk. What you need to look at is how 'long' this information has to travel to have gone its own length, then add that to 107ms.

Yet it doesn't help that much for latency... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18892081)

If I wanted to send one bit 20.000 miles away, it would take, what, 150 ms?

It's funny to see that a broadband user located in a big european city, say Paris, has today a pretty optimal "ping" time when pinging a server located in, say, New York.

Sure, there are a few ms lost here and there but overall the major limiting factor when doing such a cross-atlantic ping is the speed of light (major limiting factor as in "contributing to at least 95% of the time taken when doing such an exercise) [insert joke about lame ISPs here].

This means that even in a hundred year a user playing a FPS in L.A. won't have a low ping when playing against someone in Europe... Unless a major discovery takes place.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?