Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 6 Dec 2006.
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.
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
With that ballsy move to hop past 10G and straight to a nitrous fed 100G, they really need to change that name to WEEEEEEE
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?
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.
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.
Honestly, though i think this might just be laying the bases for web 2.0. You guys do know what's next - 1TBps Ethernet.
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.
It's still chuffing quick either way
Edit: I think my calcs are actually way off tbh, I'm checking them now lol. - Done
The is already an IEEE standard for 10g 802.3an for 10g over twisted pair
I know it's penned and defined, but they're pushing for 100 over 10, yes?
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.
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.
LOL I want more pure pr0n-downloading pirate power
the solution= tell everyone it is a way to get instant porn and someone will do it.
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
10G equipment has been availible for quite some time
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
24Mbps DSL is going for about... 50 euros around here.
I know that hard disks are a few decades behind. I don't care. I want it NOW.
Separate names with a comma.