8.6 GB Internet? 382
prostoalex writes "Caltech computer scientists announced the protocol, capable of delivering 8,609 Mbps over the Internet, using 10 simultaneous flows of data. The research project was conducted in partnership with CERN, DataTAG, StarLight, Cisco, and Level 3. The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'. There is a number of papers and scientific publications available."
This sounds like what the Pentagon needs (Score:3, Interesting)
MPAA Surrenders (Score:2, Interesting)
Unhandleable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
honestly, what's the big deal? help please. (Score:3, Interesting)
bearing that in mind, isn't 10 gigabit TCP in the getting-done stages?
i don't know, maybe i missed something 'golly-gee' about this. this just seemed superfluous.
Re:Argh! 8Gb (Score:5, Interesting)
Otherwise, who needs Internet connections if you can carry a copy of the whole Internet on 2 discs?
I love recursive acronyms. (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks pretty slick... is it a replacement for TCP, or an overlay of TCP? The article says that it uses 10 simultaneous TCP connections....
I can't find on a cursory glance whether or not it can run on IP, but I assume so. Hopefully it will work with IPv6, when (if) it becomes mainstream.
The article mentions that has an average throughput effeciency of 95% (meaning that if you have a Gigabit connection, it can send/receive stuff at around 950Mbps). Does it drop TCP's congestion handling and do something similar to UDP then?
We must fear such a technology (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, such a technology would give a boost to legal attempts to allow hard DRM - as is today illegal under the liberty-preserving legislation of a lot of countries, especially in Europe.
Do not answer that the media lobbies aren't asked to give their opinions here. Because it is part of Microsoft's, Intel's and AMD's (to cite only 3 members of the vast TCPA alliance) strategy to maintain good relationships with the media companies in order to enlarge the computer market.
You know what I'm talking about - Palladium. I don't think it's necessary to insist on the fact that it would be a bad thing for us.
Re:Bottleneck (Score:5, Interesting)
Assumin its actually 8.6 bytes/sec and not bits like another poster suggested, the pci bus would become oversaturated since it can only transfer 3.2 gb/sec ( correct me if the transfer rate is wrong).
I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this. My guess is this speed will only be used as a backbone anyway so only large unix mini's or dedicated routers will send and recieve at 8.6/gbs. Sorry Johny you can not download porn at that speed.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with IP? (Score:2, Interesting)
"The work of the IEEE P802.3ae 10Gb/s Ethernet Task Force is now complete with the approval of IEEE Std 802.3ae-2002 at the June 2002 IEEE Standards Board meeting. IEEE 802.3ae-2002 is expected to be published soon and the approved draft D5.0 is avalible for purchase from the IEEE"
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/ [ieee.org]
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~jain/refs/gbe_refs
http://www.10gea.org/ [10gea.org]
Ethernet, the whole Ethernet, and nothing but Ethernet, so help us God.
Re:Give me units I can understand! (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, this page [digitalenterprise.org], at least, says it would take 88 TB = 704 Tb to digitize the LoC.
That's correct; 30.992 Tb/hour. With 1 LoC = 80 Tb, we now get 30.992 Tb/hour / 80 Tb =With the much larger figure of 1 LoC = 88 TB = 704 Tb, we get 30.992 Tb/hour / 704 Tb = .044 LoC/hour.
Re:What's wrong with IP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethernet's an unreliable short-distance transit protocol.
Both depend on a higher layer to endow reliability on any carried datastreams. This means a number of things -- protection against dropped packets, corruption, and especially out-of-order delivery (which turns out to be a much more difficult problem than you'd think). TCP provides these services, but not without cost. Getting TCP to scale to gigabit speeds turns out to be non-trivial. Even this experiment only achieved 1Gbps -- they had to interleave across ten datastreams to achieve the maximum possible performance.
Not to take away from their achievement -- this is cool work. I'd like to see more done to handle dropped packets, though. I was thinking about MP3-style overlapping windows to allow any individual packet to be dropped, but it turns out drops clump together...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Megabits per second (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry, no.
The RS-232 async serial protocol -- your COM: port to a modem -- uses start and stop bits.
"The Internet" does not generally run over RS-232 or any other such async protocol, and such a calculation is not generally applicable. "The Internet" runs over all sorts of physical links, with all sorts of different overhead. Even the final link to your house varies. DSL, cable, and dialup all have different amounts of overhead.
The links the article is talking about were most likely SONET, and probably IP over SONET.
I see two things... (Score:5, Interesting)
And I figure that by the time this becomes mainstream, the amount of data needing to be transferred will also have increased by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, and you'll still be stuck waiting hours for the latest HoloVideo downloads. Just like you wait hours to download Attack of the Clones over DSL and Cable, and like you once waited hours to download that 5 meg shareware program over your 56K modem.
Seems like the amount of data being stored is always 1 step ahead of the amount that can be conveniently transferred... We need a war on program bloat.
Now wait a minuet! (Score:3, Interesting)
The only machine that I know of that could even utilize a connection this fast is a Cray X1 [cray.com]
Americans & the Imperial Measuring System (Score:2, Interesting)
Damn wacky imperial standard.