1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News IEEE defines next speed standard

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 6 Dec 2006.

  1. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Edhi

    Edhi New Member

    Joined:
    2 Sep 2003
    Posts:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't see this making a big impact on the end user.
    My motherboards have had gigabit ethernet for a few years now, yet the router I bought a couple of months back was still 100mbps, and that's for sharing around the house. My ADSL in comparison is 1mbps.

    Unless the telecom co's get serious about rolling out the new technology around the country as soon as it hits, we won't see any difference.
     
  3. LoneArchon

    LoneArchon New Member

    Joined:
    15 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will help out backbone connection greatly especially if the new stander can use existing Media. The large ISP can upgrade from 10gb connections to 100gb connections over existing fiber allowing them in turn upgrade user connection speeds
     
  4. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    With that ballsy move to hop past 10G and straight to a nitrous fed 100G, they really need to change that name to WEEEEEEE
     
  5. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Pretty irrelevant to the end user TBH. Nice though it would be to copy an entire 250 GB hard disk across a network in 20 seconds, I'd like to see a HDD that could deliver that much data, especially over a 3Gbps SATA link! 100 Mbps is more than enough for general home applications, let alone 1 Gbps. The purpose of this technology is obviously to increase network capacity on the internet backbone, plus perhaps for some very limited super high speed connections between servers in some kind of supercomputer / data farm.

    That said, the trickle down effect from this will benefit consumers - as backbone capacity increases and its cost decreases commensurately, ISPs will be able to offer larger download caps and/or higher speeds and/or lower costs to end consumers, which can only be a good thing.

    EDIT - On a tech geek note, 100 Gbps! Wow that's fast. Just think - a hundred billion bits every. Single. Second! To put that in context, that's enough for 4,000 simultaneous HD channels at 25 Mbps, or 25 uncompressed channels at 1080p 60 Hz 32 bits per pixel (1920*1080*60*32 ~= 4*10^9).

    Does that mean we should be expecting Terabit networking in a few years?
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2006
  6. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    we're talking 100gbps here, which comes out to just over 220MB/s. Oh, it's possible, just you'll need a 4-6 disk array of big drives striped.
     
  7. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    You can find 10G equipment around, if you're willing to PAY.

    Will this affect home use? Not in-home networking (no time soon anyways). But it'll be a nice improvement in all of the backbone infrastructure, which will (theoretically) translate to faster speeds at home at a lower price.

    I do all of my home networking at 1Gbit now, and it's a big improvement over 100Mbit. Of course, I've got cheap networking kit so I'm not getting as good throughput as I could, but it's still largely i/o limited. SATA drives are supposed to get bumped to a 6Gbit bus (600MBps after overhead) in '08, but until we move away from magnetic, rotational storage, we'll still be limited to well under 1Gbit. Sure, we'll push forward eventually, but you can be sure that, until we're all doing FTTH boot-to-LAN remote storage, it'll only be affecting the infrastructure rather than what's going on in your walls.
     
  8. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    Honestly, though i think this might just be laying the bases for web 2.0. You guys do know what's next - 1TBps Ethernet. :D
     
  9. WhiskeyAlpha

    WhiskeyAlpha New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2006
    Posts:
    838
    Likes Received:
    4
    I might be wrong but isn't the quoted speed 100Gbps - i.e. 100 Gigabits per second (approx 12,800 Megabytes or 107,374,182,400 bits per second), rather than 100 Gigabytes per second (102,400 Megabytes or 858,993,459,200 bits per second)?

    Based on my assumption, the 3Gbps SATA link will give you 384 Megabytes (or 3,221,225,472 bits) per second transfer rate meaning that a 250GB hard disk could theoretically be transferred over a network using the new standard in just over 11 minutes. :jawdrop:

    It's still chuffing quick either way :)

    Edit: I think my calcs are actually way off tbh, I'm checking them now lol. - Done :)
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2006
  10. LoneArchon

    LoneArchon New Member

    Joined:
    15 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    The is already an IEEE standard for 10g 802.3an for 10g over twisted pair
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_gigabit_Ethernet
     
  11. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    I know it's penned and defined, but they're pushing for 100 over 10, yes?
     
  12. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Er, no, 100Gbps = 100/8 = 12.5 GB/sec
    250 GB over a 12.5 GB/sec link = 20 seconds

    Even if you could find some magical hard drive that could feed a sustained transfer rate of 100 MB/sec (I'll be impressed if you can), then you'd still need the aggregate throughput of 125 such disks to saturate a 100 Gbps line.
     
  13. Tulatin

    Tulatin The Froggy Poster

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    7
    Shoops. Yeah that is definately hard to pull off. I'm supposing you need solid state storage to pull that kind of nutsy thing off.
     
  14. Hilariousity

    Hilariousity New Member

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2006
    Posts:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL I want more pure pr0n-downloading pirate power
     
  15. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    364
    the solution= tell everyone it is a way to get instant porn and someone will do it. :D
     
  16. smoguzbenjamin

    smoguzbenjamin "That guy"

    Joined:
    6 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    1
    You don't need more pr0n downloading pirate power. You've probably got plenty, I haven't seen more than 10Mbps DSL connections and those are pretty expensive. However, think of close-to-zero pings while playing online :) :) :)
     
  17. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    780
    10G equipment has been availible for quite some time
     
  18. Kipman725

    Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?!

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    thinking of upgrading the house to 10gb/s here... I easily fill up the 100mb/s and think that sometimes even Gb will be saturated with 15 or so pcs transfering files to each other ;)
     
  19. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    364
    24Mbps DSL is going for about... 50 euros around here.
     
  20. Aankhen

    Aankhen New Member

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2005
    Posts:
    406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Want.

    I know that hard disks are a few decades behind. I don't care. I want it NOW. :D
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page