• IEEE working to replace Cat5/6 with new ethernet cable, maxing either 400 Gbps or 1 Tbps
    63 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/fv2o.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/20/3254907/ieee-terrabit-ethernet-proposal[/url] [quote=The Verge]While Wi-Fi slowly creeps towards the 1Gbps mark, researchers at standards body IEEE are planning to boost wired connections to 1000 times the speed of their wireless counterparts. According to its research, core networking usage is doubling every 18 months on average, and so IEEE expects the amount of bandwidth required to raise 100-fold every 10 years. The Higher-Speed Ethernet Consensus group, the team responsible for defining to the standard, has yet to decide on the target speed for the new connection. There are two competing camps at present, one which wants the next-generation standard to max out at 400Gbps, and another that is aiming for an impossibly-fast 1Tbps connection. Although it's in everyone's interest to have the fastest speeds possible, there's a big question mark over the technical and economic practicalities of the 1Tbps proposal. The new fast-speed connections, much like the 100Gbps copper connections found in data centers and enterprise today, will likely involve grouping a number of slower cables together to great one high-speed connection. There are a number of issues with this method, such as physical size: grouping the 80 cables required for a dual-channel 1Tbps connection won't be pretty; and cost: each cable requires its own components, and fiber will likely be used rather than copper to improve speeds, cut down on the weight, and reduce the diameter of the final cable. There's no definitive date for for the new ethernet standard, but a John D'Ambrosia, the chair of the Higher-Speed Ethernet Consensus Group, told CNET that he suspects "this is going to be a very fast-moving project."[/quote] Not sure if the pun at the end is intentional or not?
why not do both, 400Gbps short-term, 1Tbps longterm
If only my Internet was fast enough to support this... :C
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37347463]Yeah, but think how quickly you could move stuff between computers at home.[/QUOTE] Not faster at all considering the limiting factor of write/read speed on the HDD/SDD
Nice, but I think the effort could be better spent on the pipes coming into the house rather than the pipes running through it, not to mention bringing SSDs down to 7-12 cents per gigabyte alongside platter drives. We can't even use the 1GBPS throughput we have now, we don't need 1TBPS LAN quite yet. [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Amiga OS;37347463]Yeah, but think how quickly you could move stuff between computers at home.[/QUOTE] I've got gigabit lan and every machine on said lan supports gigabit transfers. Yet, the fastest transfer I've ever had was just 3.4MB/s. Harddrives are the big choke point. Until SSDs are no more expensive than platter drives gigabit lan won't even be maxed out by 95% of the people using LANs. Processing power plays in too, my dad's laptop chokes off way before it's harddrive is maxed out because it's just not very powerful.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37347655]Nice, but I think the effort could be better spent on the pipes coming into the house rather than the pipes running through it, not to mention bringing SSDs down to 7-12 cents per gigabyte alongside platter drives. We can't even use the 1GBPS throughput we have now, we don't need 1TBPS LAN quite yet.[/QUOTE] Afaik IEEE has nothing to do with HDDs/SSDs?
I don't think we need new cables when hard drives, internet connection and routers won't be able to handle any of the new speeds.
You could always bring back fiber optic cabling.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;37347410]why not do both, 400Gbps short-term, 1Tbps longterm[/QUOTE] because this is a proposal for a specific standard. if they move to 400Gbps and then in ten years they do something faster it's going to be a new standard, not the same one but better.
[QUOTE=MIPS;37347742]You could always bring back fiber optic cabling.[/QUOTE] Fibre sucks for LAN's, you can't just cut it and set it your length, you can't twist/bend it much, it's expensive, light fractures will destroy the run, and fibre network adapters cost too damn much. Copper is much more durable and practical [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;37347680]Afaik IEEE has nothing to do with HDDs/SSDs?[/QUOTE] No but taking into account SAN technologies is something that will be presented to them
This is quite cool, but it's a shame that most of our infrastructure isn't ready for those speeds, and even then, the speeds of our SSDs/HDDs can't keep up, so we'd have a massive bottlenecking problem right now.
But what hard drive can write at 1TB/s or am I missing the point? EDIT: Doh, didn't read the above post.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37347988]This is quite cool, but it's a shame that most of our infrastructure isn't ready for those speeds, and even then, the speeds of our SSDs/HDDs can't keep up, so we'd have a massive bottlenecking problem right now.[/QUOTE] SSD's in a small entry level NAS 15 disk Raid 50 might be able to push 6-8GB/s out or 48-64Gb/s, remember Gb != GB
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;37348000]But what hard drive can write at 1TB/s or am I missing the point?[/QUOTE] the point is future proofing
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;37348000]But what hard drive can write at 1TB/s or am I missing the point?[/QUOTE] There are none that can even come close to 1 TB/s. The closest HDD you'll get is Western Digital's VelociRaptor 10K RPM drive. Even SSDs can't come close to 1 TB/s right now.
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;37348000]But what hard drive can write at 1TB/s or am I missing the point?[/QUOTE] I think the most i've seen is 700mbps and that's a multi-SSD setup. This is kind of dumb, tech is not nearly close to needing that sort of speed on cables.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37347655]Nice, but I think the effort could be better spent on the pipes coming into the house rather than the pipes running through it, not to mention bringing SSDs down to 7-12 cents per gigabyte alongside platter drives. We can't even use the 1GBPS throughput we have now, we don't need 1TBPS LAN quite yet. [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] I've got gigabit lan and every machine on said lan supports gigabit transfers. Yet, the fastest transfer I've ever had was just 3.4MB/s. Harddrives are the big choke point. Until SSDs are no more expensive than platter drives gigabit lan won't even be maxed out by 95% of the people using LANs. Processing power plays in too, my dad's laptop chokes off way before it's harddrive is maxed out because it's just not very powerful.[/QUOTE] 3.4 MB/s on LAN? You must be doing something wrong. I mean, many people here can download from WAN faster. A typical gigabit transfer for me is around 40-80 MB/s
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;37348100]3.4 MB/s on LAN? You must be doing something wrong. I mean, many people here can download from WAN faster. A typical gigabit transfer for me is around 40-80 MB/s[/QUOTE] He's running 10Base2.
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;37348100]3.4 MB/s on LAN? You must be doing something wrong. I mean, many people here can download from WAN faster. A typical gigabit transfer for me is around 40-80 MB/s[/QUOTE] yeah even a 5400RPM drive should be able to exceed 3.4MB/s write speeds i'm pretty sure
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37348068]There are none that can even come close to 1 TB/s. The closest HDD you'll get is Western Digital's VelociRaptor 10K RPM drive. Even SSDs can't come close to 1 TB/s right now.[/QUOTE] 15K HDD's kick the WD to the curb, in a virtual environment you want those speeds and IOPS [URL]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=20-227-764[/URL] PCI SSD's, although not popular yet, are hitting 12.8Gb/s, I suspect we will see 25-50Gb/s in the near future as flash memory keeps dropping. Who knows what in 3-5 years
My wireless is slow compared to my LAN, despite the router being the same. What shit are you guys on?
[QUOTE=Jookia;37348182]My wireless is slow compared to my LAN, despite the router being the same. What shit are you guys on?[/QUOTE] what the fuck are you talking about
[QUOTE=leontodd;37347713]I don't think we need new cables when hard drives, internet connection and routers won't be able to handle any of the new speeds.[/QUOTE] If it can be done now then it's best get it sooner rather than later.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37347655]... I've got gigabit lan and every machine on said lan supports gigabit transfers. Yet, the fastest transfer I've ever had was just 3.4MB/s. ...[/QUOTE] I've hit 110MB/s+ on my gigabit LAN before, 3.4MB is too slow for even 100Mbps LAN. [QUOTE=Tucan Sam;37348021]SSD's in a small entry level NAS 15 disk Raid 50 might be able to push 6-8GB/s out or 48-64Gb/s, [B]remember Gb != GB[/B][/QUOTE] Adding onto that, you know how everybody gets upset that storage uses 1KB = 1000B? Well networking is another field of IT that uses that convention as well (A 1Mbps network transfers around 1,000,000 bits per second). I wonder just how much software actually handles that well, and doesn't show incorrect values for throughput information (Just look how many apps show drive sizes wrong, etc.)
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37349315]Adding onto that, you know how everybody gets upset that storage uses 1KB = 1000B? Well networking is another field of IT that uses that convention as well (A 1Mbps network transfers around 1,000,000 bits per second). I wonder just how much software actually handles that well, and doesn't show incorrect values for throughput information (Just look how many apps show drive sizes wrong, etc.)[/QUOTE] 1 kB = 1000 B is the correct convention. The IEC has been trying to enforce this since 1999, and the IEEE has had an official standard since 2002. The BIPM also agrees. When using multiples of 1024, you're supposed to call them "KiB" (kibibytes), MiB (mebibytes), etc. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541[/url]
snip
[QUOTE=343N;37349985]My house doesn't even have CAT support.[/QUOTE] I've got a dog, having a cat too wouldn't work out well.
[QUOTE=343N;37349985]snip[/QUOTE] CAT got your tongue?
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;37349563]1 kB = 1000 B is the correct convention. The IEC has been trying to enforce this since 1999, and the IEEE has had an official standard since 2002. The BIPM also agrees. When using multiples of 1024, you're supposed to call them "KiB" (kibibytes), MiB (mebibytes), etc. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541[/url][/QUOTE] _iB is an idiotic nomenclature made without respect to 50+ prior years of using 1 kB = 1024 B, which is why everyone disregards it. The standard was only created after hard drive manufacturers went crying to them that they kept being sued for using improper measurements for disk space. When hard drives and storage mediums like them were first introduced, they used all sorts of methods to define space, and then settled on 1 kB = 1024 B. Only later did they change to 1 kB = 1000 B to save money, when everyone called them out on it. The IEC in general is never taken seriously for prioritizing standards based on corporate lobbying rather than standards that are actually thought out, useful and make sense. [QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37348068]There are none that can even come close to 1 TB/s. The closest HDD you'll get is Western Digital's VelociRaptor 10K RPM drive. Even SSDs can't come close to 1 TB/s right now.[/QUOTE] The spindle speed of a hard drive has less to do with throughput and more to do with seek times. There won't be much of a difference in throughput from a 7200 RPM drive to a 10/15k RPM drive, assuming they have the same amount of cache.
Enjoy your insanly fast cable. I will envy everyone while I sit here on my 5mb down and 500k up. Fuck you ISP. Fuck. You.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.