IEEE working to replace Cat5/6 with new ethernet cable, maxing either 400 Gbps or 1 Tbps
63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=areolop;37352328]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.[/QUOTE]
Why are you complaining? There are people stuck with S/ADSL at 768k and worse, and even dialup only in some parts.
[QUOTE=bohb;37352359]Why are you complaining? There are people stuck with S/ADSL at 768k and worse, and even dialup only in some parts.[/QUOTE]
Because I live in a city where we should have optics for everyone. Our city built fucking tunnels for the shit but they are commercial only. We are also getting a fucking datacenter next year but no plans to increase speeds
[QUOTE=bohb;37352317]_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.[/QUOTE]
The history doesn't matter. The point is that SI prefixes like "kilo" are under jurisdiction of the BIPM (established 1875), and the BIPM has been adamant that they mean multiples of 1000 in [b]all[/b] contexts. Early computer scientists violated the standard for convenience and speed (because computing powers of 2 was much faster than powers of 10). With today's computing speeds, there is no reason to continue this blatant disregard for standards.
Considering that storage, networking and speeds (A 1Ghz CPU is 1,000,000,000 cycles, not 1,074,000,000 cycles) all use the base 10 numbers, what areas of IT actually use the base 2 variants?
Off the top of my head, I can only think of Operating Systems, and some types of RAM/Flash storage.
Edit: I think memory and the CPU bus might be it actually.
For those of you saying "improve the internet" first, guess how that's done? That's right, running faster connections out to more places. This means more, faster connections will be possible and will eventually be just as important to the internet as CAT5, except 400/1000 times faster.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37352766]Considering that storage, networking and speeds (A 1Ghz CPU is 1,000,000,000 cycles, not 1,074,000,000 cycles) all use the base 10 numbers, what areas of IT actually use the base 2 variants?
Off the top of my head, I can only think of Operating Systems, and some types of RAM/Flash storage.
Edit: I think memory and the CPU bus might be it actually.[/QUOTE]
Windows and file storage. Although it kinda makes sense because hard drives do use 512 byte/4096 byte sectors...
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;37352561]The history doesn't matter. The point is that SI prefixes like "kilo" are under jurisdiction of the BIPM (established 1875), and the BIPM has been adamant that they mean multiples of 1000 in [b]all[/b] contexts. Early computer scientists violated the standard for convenience and speed (because computing powers of 2 was much faster than powers of 10). With today's computing speeds, there is no reason to continue this blatant disregard for standards.[/QUOTE]
History [I]does[/I] matter. You don't throw out half a century of history because some whiny organization jumps up and down [B]adamantly[/B] whining about how something isn't going their way.
If the BIPM was founded in 1875, they had more than enough chances to try and ratify a standard over the half-century of computing, and they didn't give a flying fuck about it until 10-15 years ago due to corporate lobbying for self interests rather than common good.
And if you think that calculating things based on powers of 10 over powers of 2 today is any easier than doing it back then on computers, you're terribly misinformed and incorrect.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37352766]Considering that storage, networking and speeds (A 1Ghz CPU is 1,000,000,000 cycles, not 1,074,000,000 cycles) all use the base 10 numbers, what areas of IT actually use the base 2 variants?
Off the top of my head, I can only think of Operating Systems, and some types of RAM/Flash storage.
Edit: I think memory and the CPU bus might be it actually.[/QUOTE]
Everything about the computer for the past forever has been power of 2. Nearly all external bus interfaces are power of two (ISA, PCI, PCIe, AGP, SIMM, DIMM, USB, FSB, parallel, IDE, SATA, etc.) Most all complex integrated circuits use power of 2 data buses (CPUs, GPUs, sound chips, controllers, etc.) All memory chips are in power of 2. Hard drives used to be in powers of 2 back in the 80s-early 90s (I have a few of them.)
[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]
Ever heard of data centers or telecommunication operators?
[QUOTE=bohb;37354158]And if you think that calculating things based on powers of 10 over powers of 2 today is any easier than doing it back then on computers, you're terribly misinformed and incorrect.[/QUOTE]
If you want an integer division by 10, it's a simple IDIV instruction. Floating-point is a little more complex, but not really a big performance hit unless you're doing it millions of times a second in a loop. And it's only complex if for some reason you're working in assembly language in an embedded environment. Otherwise it's three characters: "/10". And multiplying by ten is easy unless you're on a MOS 6502 with no multiply instruction.
I love how everyone is complaining that this will "Have no use" because their internet connection is only a few Mbps.
4 GB of RAM still translates to 4096MB.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37347680]Afaik IEEE has nothing to do with HDDs/SSDs?[/QUOTE]
200SSD's in RAID10
[QUOTE=areolop;37352328]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.[/QUOTE]
Was downloading CS:GO at 250kb/s a while ago. Fun stuff.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;37354611]4 GB of RAM still translates to 4096MB.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly why there should be two different units. That would be 4 GiB of RAM in IEEE terms.
My 4Mbps download speed hurts even more now.
I love the concept but I don't think we'll see an affordable consumer version in less than 8-12 years. On the other hand, it will speed up the connections between servers, switches and rounter and that could improve the internet a fair bit.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;37367412]I love the concept but I don't think we'll see an affordable consumer version in less than 8-12 years. On the other hand, it will speed up the connections between servers, switches and rounter and that could improve the internet a fair bit.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there will be a reason for the average consumer to even need this in the next 8 years.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37347680]Afaik IEEE has nothing to do with HDDs/SSDs?[/QUOTE]Doesn't matter. We can't even use gigabit lan at the moment because harddrives cannot keep up with the deluge. That leaves us with the internet...and again we have the same issues. Net connections cannot keep up with gigabit lan, and harddrives couldn't keep up with the deluge even if the tubes themselves could.
Terrabit lan is nice and I'm glad they're working to improve speeds, but the effort could be better put into improving speeds elsewhere in the network. It's like trying to widen a six lane freeway to eight lanes two miles before it drops down to two lanes. Nice effort, but it's wasted somewhere it doesn't need to be used.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37377889]Doesn't matter. We can't even use gigabit lan at the moment because harddrives cannot keep up with the deluge. That leaves us with the internet...and again we have the same issues. Net connections cannot keep up with gigabit lan, and harddrives couldn't keep up with the deluge even if the tubes themselves could.
Terrabit lan is nice and I'm glad they're working to improve speeds, but the effort could be better put into improving speeds elsewhere in the network. It's like trying to widen a six lane freeway to eight lanes two miles before it drops down to two lanes. Nice effort, but it's wasted somewhere it doesn't need to be used.[/QUOTE]
And where do you suggest is the "elsewhere" that they improve speeds? Do you really think that this won't do anything? Also, a single SSD has no problem saturating 6 gbps, so imagine a server rack full of them... datacenters need all the bandwidth they can get. If this is about your slow internet connection, complain to your local ISP oligopoly (as they ignore you) or wait until google fiber gets big enough to actually impact the market.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37377889]Doesn't matter. We can't even use gigabit lan at the moment because harddrives cannot keep up with the deluge. That leaves us with the internet...and again we have the same issues. Net connections cannot keep up with gigabit lan, and harddrives couldn't keep up with the deluge even if the tubes themselves could.
Terrabit lan is nice and I'm glad they're working to improve speeds, but the effort could be better put into improving speeds elsewhere in the network. It's like trying to widen a six lane freeway to eight lanes two miles before it drops down to two lanes. Nice effort, but it's wasted somewhere it doesn't need to be used.[/QUOTE]
Yeah who cares about the enterprises... oh right everyone with a job...
Virtual environments will chew up 10Gb/s network with vmotions and such
[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, remember Gb != GB[/QUOTE]
Make sure they have TRIM support or you've just designed a very expensive hardware failure :wink:
[QUOTE=mblunk;37378709]Also, a single SSD has no problem saturating 6 gbps, so imagine a server rack full of them... datacenters need all the bandwidth they can get.[/QUOTE]
One SSD: Theoretical 4.4gbps maximum.
Upgrading to fibre optic in September.
I'm okay with this
[QUOTE=BorisJ;37379365]Make sure they have TRIM support or you've just designed a very expensive hardware failure :wink:
One SSD: Theoretical 4.4gbps maximum.[/QUOTE]
On SATA/SAS 6gbps, yes. PCIE SSDs, however, can easily reach into several gigabytes per second
I think they should improve the connector on the end, that plastic clip sometimes snaps off.
[QUOTE=Demache;37377613]I don't think there will be a reason for the average consumer to even need this in the next 8 years.[/QUOTE]
Well considering the advancements in computer hardware that were made in the last 8 years, it might be a needed. We could have 16TB SSDs or do lots of RDP/VNC stuff then or even hardware sharing between PCs such as having 2 PCs with GPU, CPU and ram sharing. 8 years ago I had an 80gb hard disk with 100Mbps ethernet, Now I have 4.5 TB with 1000Mbps ethernet.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;37382173]I think they should improve the connector on the end, that plastic clip sometimes snaps off.
Well considering the advancements in computer hardware that were made in the last 8 years, it might be a needed. We could have 16TB SSDs or do lots of RDP/VNC stuff then or even hardware sharing between PCs such as having 2 PCs with GPU, CPU and ram sharing. 8 years ago I had an 80gb hard disk with 100Mbps ethernet, Now I have 4.5 TB with 1000Mbps ethernet.[/QUOTE]Okay well 8 years might have been a stretch, but for most people, the only thing they use ethernet for is connecting their computers to the Internet (which even Fast Ethernet can easily keep up with) . The stuff your talking about isn't really typical use for the average person.
350 kb/s here
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
[sp]help[/sp]
[QUOTE=Demache;37392126]Okay well 8 years might have been a stretch, but for most people, the only thing they use ethernet for is connecting their computers to the Internet (which even Fast Ethernet can easily keep up with) . The stuff your talking about isn't really typical use for the average person.[/QUOTE]You could say that, but people still use NAS boxes and 12 years ago the typical user didn't know what a GPU was.
Are they going to make the goddamn clips stronger?
[QUOTE=reedbo;37403968]Are they going to make the goddamn clips stronger?[/QUOTE]
That's totally up to the manufacturers, not the standards agency. The only thing the standards define is the shape and size, if the manufacturers want to make them stronger, they can use stronger materials.
Monster Ethernet, now with Titanium clip. Don't compromise, get high quality Monster Ethernet today! Special introductory price: $100 for 3 meters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.