Net Speed Record Smashed 395
BrianWCarver writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists have set a new internet speed record by transferring 6.7 gigabytes of data (the equivalent of 4 hours of DVD-quality movies) across 10,978 kilometres (6,800 miles), from Sunnyvale in the US to Amsterdam in Holland, in less than one minute. Average speed: more than 923 megabits per second, or more than 3,500 times faster than a typical home broadband connection. The data was sent across the Internet2 network. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Slac) Computer Services participated in the record-breaking event. Slac has an interest in such high-speed transfers as they have accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day."
Wow.. Thats fast. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow.. Thats fast. (Score:2, Funny)
Why do we have to use these obscure units when we could have easily had LOC's/unit of Planck time or Animatrix DVD / fortnight ?
Re:Wow.. Thats fast. (Score:3, Funny)
Yea!! My car gets 40 Rods to the HoggsHead and that's the way I likes it!
*grin*
Rods to the Hogshead (Score:3, Funny)
However, now it seems that the hogshead has now been standardized to 62.99 (63) gallons. (and thank God, I was tired of doing all the conversions at the grocery store. "Lets see...1 English hogshead...is....uh....damnit.") A rod is 16.5 feet.
I don't even know if battleships have fuel economy which is THAT bad.
However, Simpsons quote appreciated. Just something to chew on.
Doc
Re:Wow.. Thats fast. (Score:4, Funny)
KFG
Re:Wow.. Thats fast. (Score:2)
LOC and others (Score:3, Interesting)
warez :) (Score:2, Funny)
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
After a while, you won't really care how fast your connection is... Your time perception will slow down and you will just want to sit on the couch and eat cheatos...
Re:First Post (Score:2)
What media were they writing to? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What media were they writing to? (Score:5, Informative)
In computing the amount of data transferred, only data transferred from user-process-space buffer(s) in the data-source network application to user-process-space buffer(s) in the data-sink network application may be counted.
Video systems handle more than this (Score:5, Informative)
In special effects work each frame is handled as an uncompressed TIFF at high res (I can't remember the exact bit depth and res). Previewing sequences means streaming these TIFF images. Adds up to about 400MB/s sustained (that's byte, not bit). HD video at 720p has similar requirements -- don't forget, you musn't drop any frames, and it has to arrive on time.
I work in such an effects shop, and we've had several demos of HD-capable digital disk recorders over the last few months. Two out of three were based on Linux, and worked well (the other was custom). Twin Ultra 320 channels with software RAID across the two channels, XFS as a filesystem. They each did the job with a 2U enclosure full of largely stock components (except the video I/O board) -- and that's 3.2GBit/s I/O to the drive array.
Re:Video systems handle more than this (Score:5, Informative)
2048x1556, usually at 4 bytes per pixel. That might be packed as 12-bit RGB, or it might be float or log.
Adds up to about 400MB/s sustained (that's byte, not bit).
Your math is off. DPX's at 2K are only 12 MB per frame, and it's only 24 frames per second. That's 288 MB per second.
HD video at 720p has similar requirements
HD at 720p has requirements that are nowhere near those of 2K. A 720p stream at two bytes per pixel requires 110 MB/s, less than half that of 2K. Of course, it's not uncommon to do cross-fades and other real-time transitions in video production, so it's sometimes necessary to play back two streams simultaneously, for a total of 220 MB/s.
RAM disk perhaps? (Score:2)
Re:What media were they writing to? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What media were they writing to? (Score:5, Funny)
Clustering (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have a master node acting as round-robbin server, you could have hundreds of machines behind it. Each of those, in turn, could be the master node of a large Beowulf cluster.
Or just picture your ISP's core switch. It is transfering the data for thousands of users. That data is being read and written, just not by one computer...
Re:What media were they writing to? (Score:4, Funny)
Rather unlikely. After all, you have to check that the transmission has ended with no errors. You could make a checksum, but I guess for such an experiment, they took the trouble to write to memory, probably in some kind of parallel setup.
Alternatively, perhaps they just cut open the last bit of the optic fiber and watched the bits project onto the wall and make pretty patterns
Re:What media were they writing to? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, it's smart alecky people like you who at least double the time to market for all the new technology.
Check for errors.. Bah!
You're probably the type who'd want to test the code before it goes into production.
Sheesh, what next? Put dummies in cars and smash them into walls?!?
LOC ? (Score:2, Funny)
charmer
Welcome to the future. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the future. (Score:3, Funny)
dont you just hate those ones that are so short they have no real content.. or the ones that are spanned across a hundred files... man that just makes me mad....
Re:Welcome to the future. (Score:5, Funny)
For those of you who prever more conventional units, the conversion rate is roughly 6,000 hours of movie per Library of Congress.
HTH
Re:Welcome to the future. (Score:3, Funny)
What'd they send? (Score:4, Funny)
But in the absence of real evidence, I prefer to make things up.
They sent pr0n.
Re:What'd they send? (Score:3, Funny)
But in the absence of real evidence, I prefer to make things up.
They sent pr0n.
Obviously, it was SLACware.
oops (Score:5, Funny)
ahh, it actually was 4 hours of DVD-quality movies...
Re:oops (Score:2)
I know its just a trial but are there any predictions/guesses out there of how this type of network will cope with more than one user?
Re:oops (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oops (Score:2)
OmniNET
The Pipe
Pr0n in 60 seconds And my favorite:
Darpa's Revenge
great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great (Score:2, Insightful)
Greanted when I was on my University's www2 connection and getting sweet low pings (90ms) to other students on their university www2 connection I wasn't academic use . . . but it was cool!
robi
Re:great (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, okay, you can't go out and buy dialup on it.. but that's not what The Internet was started as either.
Internet2? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying "Our new car can go 6000 mph! (on a conveyer belt moving at 5950 mph).
Re:Internet2? (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:Internet2? (Score:3, Informative)
You can do that but the results are measured in terabit-meters/second.
In case of the Single Stream Class IPv6 record that we [arnes.si] still hold [internet2.edu] 675 Mb was transfered from Ljubljana over Vienna to New York and back over London, Paris, Geneve, Milan to Madrid making a total of 14.800 km of network with the average speed of 348 megabits/s and Data Transfer Speed of 5154 terabit-meters/second.
To cut the long story short: the speed is not the only thing important in such projects.
I will also use this opportunity to say: way to go ARNES and keep up the good work.
tcp/ip is *directly* relevant (Score:4, Interesting)
RIAA and MPAA Sues Internet2! (Score:5, Funny)
If they are using that much bandwidth they must be pirating something.
Re:RIAA and MPAA Sues Internet2! (Score:4, Funny)
With the aid of special math developed by the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA, they will prove that their respective markets are losing 3,500 times more now than they were just last week!
It's a race... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's a race... (Score:3, Interesting)
What OS was it this time around?
(Seriously not flame bait, I'm curious.)
Data used to expand to fit your disk... (Score:2, Funny)
One TB per day ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not fast enough (Score:2)
If SLAC is generating a terabyte of information a day, 900+ bits/second isn't nearly fast enough to transfer it.
(Yes, I know that only parts of that data are likely to be useful enough to transfer, but it does suggest that there is still quite a ways to go in the quest for bandwidth.)
Re:Not fast enough (Score:2)
900 megabits per second is 77.76 terabits per day, or 9.72 terabytes per day -- almost ten times the volume of data SLAC is generating.
Re:Not fast enough (Score:3, Interesting)
8388608 MB / 923 MB/s = 9088 s
9088 s = 2.53 h
Seems fast enough, or am I missing something?
Re:Not fast enough (Score:2)
What record? (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmm, Guiness...
Re:What record? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What record? (Score:5, Funny)
Carl:You counting the neck?
Lenny:You know I am.
Carl:Alright, outside.
Homer:Peace, my people. All shall be looked up.
Yeah? So? (Score:2)
Largest database in the world... (Score:3, Funny)
During its research, Slac has accumulated the largest known database in the world, which grows at one terabyte per day.
Wow! I hope they never allow that information to be downloaded on the Internet. If they do, then Google will quickly become the largest database in the world ;-).
SLAC (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, the SLAC library (SPIRES) [stanford.edu] stores pretty much every particle physics experiment data and write-up ever.
Here is the pretty picture and their about page. [stanford.edu]
Re:SLAC (Score:3, Funny)
The lighting fixures were made out of 2x8's with florescent tubes between them and faced on the underside with pebbled plastic, but open on the top.
I got some rather interesting data on particle scattering *and* created a nice "stained glass" effect, all at the same time.
I thought I could gather some interesting data ( and a more interesting "stained glass effect) on the entropic properties of the Jell-O cubes as they melted, but they didn't, they just sorta "mummified."
I stopped eating the "Jell-O" cubes after that.
KFG
Re:SLAC (Score:2)
Internet2 = scientest warez ring (Score:2)
I thought these guys were supposed to be using it for "legitimate research," not sharing their ripped dvd collections.
You know, I really wouldn't mind if they gave me internet2 access too, you know.
Pfft. That's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)
"A simple calculation will make this point clear. An industry standard 8mm video tape (e.g. Exabyte) can hold 7 Gigabytes. a box 50x50x50 cm can hold about 1000 of these tapes, for a total apacity of 7000 Gigabytes. A box of tapes can be delivered anywhere in the US in 24 hours by Federal Express and other companies. The ffective bandwidth of this transmission is 56,000 gigabits/86400 sec or 648 Gbps, which is 1000 times better than the high-speed version of ATM (622 Mbps). If the destination if only an hour away by road, the bandwidth is increased to over 15Gbps."
-- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks, Third Edition"
Re:Pfft. That's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pfft. That's nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pfft. That's nothing. (Score:3, Funny)
I'll see your station wagon full of backup tapes, and raise you an Antonov cargo plane full of DVDs.
Sending movies to Amsterdam? (Score:2, Funny)
Surely they sent Buffy episodes (Score:2)
In one minute.. (Score:2, Funny)
160,000 banner ads
85333 pages serves of Are You Hot or Not [hotornot.com]
3,200 copies of Gator [gator.com]
1,066 2 minute average quality porn clips
10 pirated copies of Windows XP home edition
I can't wait for Internet2!
grows at a terabytes a day? (Score:2)
And, dosn't the gigabit speed seems kinda trivial, compared to the massive amounts of data stored there?
Heck how do they manage corrupt bits? the chance of random bits failing here and there is just too high to ignore, no?
some stats to follow (Score:2)
Today's record was about 59.5 seconds for 6.7GB, so rounding off to 6.7GB/min: 7194070221 bytes / minute (roughly)
that would take 172154.27 minutes to get everything out on this fat pipe
equating to about 119.55 days, or roughly 4 monthes. That's keeping at the maximum record set today all day everyday for that duration.
Ouch...
Yeah? What about their PING times (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine, international internet gaming with low latencies all 'round. Sounds like a pipe dream.
Re:Yeah? What about their PING times (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine, international internet gaming with low latencies all 'round. Sounds like a pipe dream.
Unfortunately, it is. The two farthest points around earth are 12,000 miles. Round trip means 24,000 miles. Speed of light is 186,000 miles / second. That means that, best theoretical case, round trip is 129 milliseconds. Of course, you'll never get close to the best theoretical case, particularly with wire, never mind routers, etc.
In the immortal words of John Carmack, "The Speed of Light Sucks".
Re:Yeah? What about their PING times (Score:2)
if entanglement propagates at the speed of light, then you don't need to consider surface distance, but the true shortest distance (if this takes in to account space curvature, then who knows), but if it propagates instantaneously, forget the speed of light!
Who knows if entanglement can ever be used for permanent data transmission links, but I don't think that possibility has been discounted yet.
Sheesh (Score:2)
Average speed: more than 923 megabits per second, or more than 3,500 times faster than a typical home broadband connection.
That'd be pretty sucky broadband, if you ask me. 262kb? I mean, it's better than dial-up certainly, but...
Not to brag, but I typically get better than 2.4Mb, if I'm downloading from a good site. That makes it only 385 times faster than me. :)
Out of curiosity... (Score:2)
The database... (Score:2)
I know they use Objectivity/DB:
http://www.objectivity.com/
But I would like to find out what kind of hardware they employ.
Was Microsoft a sponsor? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh Sure (Score:2)
When Wired says it almost a month ago, no one says boo.
Or is this a duplicate and I missed it last time around.
Either way, WOOT!
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
MPAA Threatens Internet2 Lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)
"You can copy all of the Godfather movies in milliseconds!" Valenti shouted, slamming his fist upon the podium. "We're going to take THIS to the mattresses! To the MATTRESSES!"
Rosen added, somewhat more sedately, that the a user could log into an Internet2 account and download the "greatest hits library of Hansen" in less than five minutes. Rosen refused to comment when a reporter asked her how Internet2 was any different, that similar acts of piracy could be accomplished today using only a dialup modem.
Slow start, window scaling (Score:3, Interesting)
Eg is this the peak rate that it was able to sustain for a one minute period once the transfer was already running, or did it take one minute from start to finish. It's an important distinction with TCP because slow start needs several round trips in order to open the window large enough to get max througput over such a high speed, long distance link.
Also how on earth did they handle packet loss? Getting the max throughput out of a high-latency link with just a single TCP connection is not easy.
I think I can beat this... (Score:2)
Calling Soviet Russia...
In related news... (Score:2)
No big deal. Canada has much faster network (Score:5, Informative)
Article here: http://chronicle.com/free/v45/i47/47a02101.htm [chronicle.com].
Ah I2 (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
That means you could transfer an entire Kevin Costner film in under 30 minutes!
Pointless DVD comparisons are tiring... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing the transfer capacity to some number of hours of DVD video material is pointless, since the bitrate is not the same from one title to the next.
For example, 6.7 gigabytes of data is actually only 6.23 gibibytes. A video stream would have to be encoded at around 3.5 mebibits/second to fit four hours of material in 6.23GiB. I wouldn't call that a quality video stream. And that's WITHOUT an audio sub-stream! You're not far away from Super VCD world at this bit rate.
Now, using a more reasonable average bitrate of, say, at least 4.5 mebibits would mean that the 6.23 gibibytes of data would only hold about 3 hours of "DVD-Video quality material".
Which brings us back to my point. Using DVD Video as a measure of data capacity is pointless, since there is no single data rate used for DVD Video.
I know what it REALLY means... (Score:3, Funny)
Read: GET ACCESS TO OVER 53,000,000,000,000 EMAIL ADDRESSES! ONLY $99 A MONTH!
FedEx could beat that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ping time would be about 43200000ms though
TeraGrid Backplane (Score:3, Interesting)
That's about 3000 kilometers. Assuming lightspeed transmission, there could theoretically be something like 40 or 50 megabytes of data at a time in transit.
Yeah, it's fast but... (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, when do we get the quantuum packet transfer?
Re:Umm... That's not so fast.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago SGI did a test where they leased a piece of cross-country dark fibre for a day and ran GSN over it. That's a single connection-- using ST, not TCP-- from one computer to another computer, RAM to RAM. They pegged over 790 MB/s (that's a big B, as in megabytes per second), and sustained it for hours. And, just to reiterate, this was from one computer to another computer, without any fancy-schmancy multiplexing or anything. This was the ST equivalent of a single FTP transfer.
I can't find any documentation of this test on the web, but I saw it with mine own eyes. One end of the connection was in Herndon, VA, (where I was) and the other was out west someplace.
The SLAC test did 900+ Mb/s over a switched network, which is darned impressive. It's undoubtedly a record for a public switched connection. But don't go thinking it's an absolute land speed record or anything like that.
Re:I wonder what database server software(s) they (Score:2)
Re:amsterdam (Score:5, Funny)
Re:so it can transfer a lot of data quickly.... (Score:5, Interesting)
10,978Km / c (speed of light) = (about) 0.0036 s
At least 3.6ms latency. Likley in the 5ms range tho, considering cut-through times and propegation delays.
Soko
Re:so it can transfer a lot of data quickly.... (Score:3, Informative)
or if you do it the right way (tm):
10.978.000 / 300.000.000 =
10.978 / 300.000 ~= 0,036593 -> 36.59ms
(and you should probably get a better measure for both the distance and the speed of light
Re:so it can transfer a lot of data quickly.... (Score:3, Informative)
10,978 km / (300,000 km/sec *
10,978 kn / (200,100 km/sec) = 54.86 ms.
Re:That's cool... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:speed (Score:2, Funny)
Now all I'll need is the bandwidth...
Re:Internet 2 will never be allowed to the public. (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is which government? Last time I looked a) the Internet was international and b) we din't have a world governement.
Re:Internet2, tell me more....... (Score:3, Informative)