What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
122 Comments
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24WTF is a tolken ring? I mean, I know what a token ring is, but Tolken? Is it anything like a Tolkien ring? Do we get to talk about Lord of the Rings and speak in elvish?
- banglogic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Funny, I rarely see even *1GB* Ethernet in actual production environments. Perhaps this will push 1GB into more common usage...
- JamesMorris, on 10/10/2007, -17/+36Faster Porn & Movie Downloads For Everyone :)
- duke_nate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23Sweet, more standards that are even more confusing than their predecesors!
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12About as fast as your hard drives spin. Which isn't anywhere near 100Gbps, or even 40Gbps, or even 200MBps generally.
- ecksfilter, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Great, we have to wait 3 years and have 2 standards.
- thegreyfox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Crap i just ran CAT 6 in my home.
- jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Standards schmanders. Doesn't make any difference. We'll still be on 10BaseT for the next 20 years.
- arrogantprick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And at home, I'm still so rural we still only have dial up....
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10My last job we had a 10Gb fiber back bone to 120 servers and 1Gb to about 800 desktops. But that was a hospital. Now you know why your bill is do high ;)
- Calypsoaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Gb Ethernet is mainly used in a backbone enviroment right now. Mostly switch to switch, switch to router, and some high access servers. It just isn't cost effective to run Gb to the desktops.
- tonaros, on 11/14/2007, -2/+9Sorry you're getting dugg down, James. Though inaccurate, I still thought it was funny.
- Emmo213, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The same network utilization as before: porn. Besides, this isn't going to help make my cable internet any faster.
- MeMongo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You would probably benefit from a new DOCSIS standard because that's the standard that carries the Internet over your cable connection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS - BigglesPiP, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Holy crap, that's more than SATA3.
I wonder what sort of network utilisation will be possible? - ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I know that there are some (minuscule) latency differences between 100 and 1000 but are you really tapping out your 100mbps connections throughput? What runs so slow that you're unhappy about it? I'd bet any latency or sluggishness you experience has more to do with oversubscription somewhere else along the path (core switching aggregation or internet uplink) than it does your local 100mbps connection.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Apparently you've never talked to anyone at an ISP (Time Warner, Comcast) or NSP (AT&T, Verizon, Level3), these guys chew through bandwidth like crazy. A 40Gbps link is actually a /slow/ comprimise to the 60Gbps our network engineer was hoping for (meaning our building will have to have two connections instead of one).
Once this standard gets published and pushed, it should help Internet2 out quite a bit too, which is good for everyone involved. - Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, they are three different standards.
- sulf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Think outside of residential networking. I'm sure 40/100 Gbps will be quite handy for companies' LAN backbones.
- ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Unlikely as the problem becomes the HDD's ability to extract the info off the platters. Maybe solid state drives could benefit but even that's unlikely.
- ducs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think he means 10. To be honest, even at the universities I attend, we only have 10 Mbps theoretical. I wouldn't be surprised to see 10bT equipment 50 years from now.
- ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm unaware of any HDD that is *native* ethernet. All of the network attached storage devices you see out there are ethernet front ends to SATA, IDE or SCSI drives. The IO is not driven by ethernet. The other big limiting factor on spinning HDD's is read write speed. This has to do with a number of things, one of which is the speed of the platters (7200 rpm for instance), another is cache. There's a reference on wikipedia to this problem, stating that SATA 3.0's theoretical speed already outpaces the raw capability of the physical disk's ability to move data. SATA 3.0 throughput is 300MBps or 2400mbps. That's a far cry from this standard.
- bradsully, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i hope you mean 100BaseT.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5100Gbps?
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Maybe faster porn downloads for everyone at work...?
- ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In general this is cool but ultimately everyone's individual experience is based on the slowest hop between you and what your trying to get to. Anyone who's saying this is awesome because they think they'll see this in their home or to a desktop any time soon is delusional.
I did an install of a bunch of Cisco 6500's last year with 10gbps ethernet links between the cores and closets. Couple thousand users in total and the closet switches were generally maxed out on ports. Can anyone guess the utilization on the 10gbps links? 5% is a really busy day.
This new standard will only be seen in data centers for quite a number of years. - bradsully, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4802.3bamf
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Some of use use networks for other things than hooking up to the Internet to play games.
- haroonie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Beam me up Scottie!
- Drizzit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Nobody will be seeing this in their houses anytime soon. We use 10 gigabit here for telecom and those cards are a quarter of a million dollars each for 4 ports.
- Valleye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So how does that affect manufacturers, are they free to support one speed or are they required to support both speeds to be IEEE 802.3ba compliant?
Seems like that will make for more expense for not alot of gain. - ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think, and I could be wrong about this, that network equipment looks at packets in terms of bits. Hard drives and OS's tend to look at data in byte size chunks instead. It is a pain in the ass to have to remember to do the math all the time.
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nor is it really worthwhile. We're all still limited by hard drives!
- vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Don't worry, you cant afford this anyhow.
- Ansible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This would be awesome for networking monitors. Imagine having a home network where your monitor is a networked device. Just put the CPU in a closet someplace and put monitors wherever you need them through the house. How cool is that? Need a wall of monitors, just plug 'em in.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well the current DOCSIS modems can do approx 30 - 40 Mbps right now so I don't see how this will change anything. The cable companies set the speeds at the routers serviceing the neighborhoods. I used to be a broadband tech for Time Warner Cable.
- shifty2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4perhaps while they're at it they should mark all speed measurements as "GBps" not "Gbps" there is a huge difference between 'B' and 'b'... about 8x!! I know, I know, its all marketing crap. 40Gbps does sound better than 5GBps. Hard drive companies use Bytes rather than bits, so why can't ISP's and network equipment manufactures? doesn't it makes more sense to use Bytes rather than bits??
- Calypsoaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, I always keep my equipment in one centralized power failure zone, it makes for easier troubleshooting when the night cleaning lady blows the circuit breaker with her vacuum cleaner.
...! - vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Quite unlikely, actually. Unless you wouldn't mind a significant premium on every drive because of the required brains to make it work, then add on to that, the mind-numbing price (about $3k or so per port) for even 10Gbps Ethernet.
Yes there are current technologies that essentially do just that, e.g. iSCSI and ATAoE, but those are merely an extension of the SAN paradigm. And these are great when you have 1000 hard drives in LA that you want to connect to your server farm in Chicago, or just to the traditional FC SAN down the hall. But there is no good reason to use it inside your PC. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They should just delay approving the standard until a concensus can be reached or new developments in technology eliminate the need for two different speeds. The point of having standards is to simplify things and supporting two different speeds will just make everything more expensive.
- bradsully, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its more of a LAN standard than a WAN one.
- nullity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or maybe if you RTFA you'll see that one is for copper and the other is for fiber.
- solemnraven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well hard drive actually ahve to WRITE the data, networks just have to transmit it it.
- javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah like those 3 standards
- pantuky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The Internet is for Porn. The Internet is for Porn. Why you think the net was born? Porn Porn Porn. Grab you dick and double click for Porn Porn Porn.
- Heembo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2uh, you mean 100bT?
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What problem? The things already exist.
- ughhgu6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was wondering the same thing so I took a quick look at some of the HSSG docs to see where their thinking is on the copper medium. No where does it mention CAT anything. I see a variety of high speed connectors such as SFP based versions and Infiniband. I hope someone does figure out a way to do it on CAT6 but the way they are getting to the higher speeds is to use multiple paths within the same cable. Even CAT6 runs into crosstalk problems at these speeds, I think.
- finezapa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We won't be seeing this type of technology in our homes any time soon. All other technology will need to catch up first (disk speeds, etc). So stop drooling over faster porn. It'll be used in small links within larger/more robust infrastructures.
- EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This has nothing to do with your ISP.
Your internet speeds won't be any faster. -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is