New Data Transmission Record — 14 Tbps 193
deejne writes to alert us to a new bandwidth record: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone has announced data transmission at a rate of 14 terabits per second over a single optical fiber. The paper claims the previous record was "about 10 Tbps." In the new experiment, NTT sent data over 160 kilometers (nearly 100 miles) of optical fiber, in 140 channels of 111 Gbps each.
140 channels of 111 Gbps each (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Preparing? (Score:5, Funny)
Misread title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Misread title (Score:5, Funny)
Given an hour with that link it's exactly what i'd use it for.
Re:Misread title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even if you could (Score:2)
Okay, its about time... (Score:2)
Re:Okay, its about time... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I remember back on my 14.4 modem... those text pages loaded like the wind. I was on top of the world... Then those damned pictures started cropping up on websites. Pictures on the internet? Ha! Then came the 56.6k modem which showed those pictures who were boss. No problems. Oh wait, online gaming? File sharing ? Cable and DSL save the day. More than adequate
Reply:
I beg to differ. I have [cough] friends that download movi^H^H^H^H^H content from the internet, and some dvd rips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H database files can be larger than 4GB! Even at a good (cheap) DSL line of 1KBPS it still takes quite alot longer to download content than it would take to go to blockbuster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the office and pick up physical media with the data on it.
Re:Okay, its about time... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Okay, its about time... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I routinely peg my download of 4.5 Mbps. So much so, I'm considering paying $15 more for 6.5 Mbps.
Until consumer grade broadband catches up to hard drive read/write speeds, it's never going to be fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
However the Internet speed has been stagnant here in Canada for the past 5 years at least. Just the standard ADSL and noone ever gets the 8Mbit download speed as advertised.
I dont think we'll ever reach 14Tbps while Bell is in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
land speed record (Score:5, Funny)
We're talking about tubes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We're talking about tubes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:land speed record (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the highways get filled up with semis and traffic slows to a crawl? Yeah, tubes aren't like highways at all...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say that a DVD's box is 15cm by 15cm by 2mm (about 2000 DVDs per cubic meter), and the semi is 20m by 5m by 5m (500 cubic meters). That's one million DVDs, each containing about 8 GB or 64 Gb, so 64 petabits total. Traveling at 100 km/h (60-70 mph), that makes approximately 20 Tbps over a 100 km link.
(If hard drives are carried instead of DVDs, I guess that number becomes about 100 Tbps.)
So, a loaded truck is still better than a single fiber link, but not by an order of magnitude. It's not "no
Re:land speed record (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1m/15cm=6+packing room. 1m^2 = 36 stacks. Say 450disks/stack+packing room. 36*450=8,100,000 DVDs.
144Tb/s. I want to see the machine can suck down data as fast as one guy with a forklift can unload.
That's a spot-on order of magnitude with one truck. Wanna guess at the rwnd for 100km of interstate?
Time for a Math Lesson. (Score:3, Informative)
The distance traversed is 100 miles, which would take 1.4 hours, at 70MPH.
There are 3600 seconds in an hour.
This means that per hour a line can move 1.58 million DVD's
for a 70 MPH trip this adjusts to 2.25 Million DVD's
or 225,000 (100 disk spindles) Each Spindle Weighs 4Lbs
leaving 900,000 lbs or 450 tons..
That would be a semi with 200 cars loaded on it....
Now How big of a truck are you drivin....?
Storm
Re:Time for a Math Lesson. oops correction.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So while the new line isnt quite nothing compared to a truck, a truck can move more data 100 miles faster than the new link.
Storm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Until you consider loading/unloading time and writing/reading the DVDs, which would add days of latency. I'm assuming that this fiber line has vritually no latency.
Re: (Score:2)
A large truck can be over 40 tons. So you could get up to about 60 tbps.
Now, consider a fleet of 100 trucks. 6 pbps!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
swallows (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes [imdb.com]
Re:swallows (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now add on the time to burn to the DVDs then read them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Storm
Re:land speed record, oops.. (Score:2)
oops. Storm
download speeds (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The old record still stands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Memory serves, fingers don't. I meant a few Tbps over 2000 km.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) Yes, distance is cruically important in these measurements. There's no points in having gazillions of petabyte data transfer if it can only done from one corner of the lab to the other. Which is why all credible speed-of-information-transfer articles include a number with units of [ (bits / second) * distance].
2) The record is still held by the transmissions from Voyager II's encounter with Neptune.
Re: (Score:2)
Not my fault if the organisers haven't yet had time to post the postdeadline programme. I suppose it will be on SEE's [conference-services.net] or ECOC's [ecoc2006.org] website.
But I did find an announcement for Lucent's second paper there [eetimes.com]. It was about 1 Tbps (10 channels of 100 Gbps Ethernet) over 2000 km using off-the-shelf components.
Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Right question, wrong hardware. (Score:3, Informative)
On the whole, fiber is cheep. Ultra-high-speed multiplexors and demultiplexors are not. A typical bundle of fibers might easily have 128 or 1024 fibers running through it, and the extra quality needed to go from a few terabits to a few t
Re: (Score:2)
Also as other poster said, you'd be better doing it by geographical and population properties rather than by lines of authority.
You won't be seeing this at home anytime soon (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You won't be seeing this at home anytime soon (Score:5, Insightful)
That goes without saying, right? It is, after all, a record. People don't usually turn to the Guinness book of world records for guidance on, say, what a realistic number of hotdogs is to consume within 12 minutes.
Now of course, greater bandwidth is cool and all, but 14 Tbps is obviously impractical for actual use, even in specialist medical imaging applications -- for the simple reason you couldn't fill up your harddrive (or even RAM) as quick as that!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting argument, though I'd counter that the Guinness Book is rather pointedly not a research journal, so people don't interpret "guy eats 200 hotdogs in one hour" to mean that there's a large corporation working feverishly to figure out how to make it possible for joe schmoe to do the sa
use? one word: multiplexing (Score:2)
Now of course, greater bandwidth is cool and all, but 14 Tbps is obviously impractical for actual use, even in specialist medical imaging applications -- for the simple reason you couldn't fill up your harddrive (or even RAM) as quick as that!
Sure, you'll have trouble finding a single application to handle that data rate. But say that I'm a broadcaster now paying to have my 100 SDI video paths (each 270 Mbps) carried across town on dozens of fibers because each fiber can only carry a handful of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, I, as a UK residential internet user, have been using at least 155Mbps links for the internet for at least a few years. My end connection might not be that fast, but my traffic certainly travels across fast high bandwidth tubes, and end-to-end bandwidth wouldn't be anywhere near as fast without them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surprisingly, data demands in the medical environment aren't nearly as high as you might think. We routinely route MRI images from hospital to hospital with infrared and T1 connections. Those MRI images are actually only about 10MB each. We got ourselves a 1Gb/s imaging network at our
Re: You won't be seeing this at home anytime soon (Score:2)
Yeah, I want to use a rocket sled stacked with DVDs, but I can't find a vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pushing 56k through a POTS line was an experiment once.
10 Base er, something (Score:2)
Typical Slashdotter grasp of the obvious (Score:2)
What would a consumer do with 10 terabits per second? The only comprehensible measure of that speed is "one large cabinet of DVDs per second." It might be nice to have a DVD vending machine that could chug along at that clip, but you'd have to feed it a ton of polycarbonate every 5 min
Hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pays to be frugal. (Score:4, Funny)
But does it mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
Convert to standard units please (Score:4, Funny)
Also, they failed to provide a conversion from terabyte to Libraries of Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love acronyms (Score:3, Insightful)
Try saying "CSRZ-DQPSK" three times fast! I guess this acronym does serve the purpose of being easier to say than "carrier suppressed return-to-zero differential quadrature phase shift keying," but couldn't they have chosen a snazzy acronym that was hip to say and then worked out what it meant, like NASA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arthur C. Clarke (Score:2, Interesting)
......
.....
NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG.
Re: (Score:2)
NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! That is nothing! (Score:5, Funny)
20*4*10^11*8/sqrt(2*2/9.8)~=10^14 bps or 100 Tbps
As you see if you have enough money to burn you may easily scale that number.
Re: (Score:2)
Tbps? (Score:2)
I thought that we had established that the only true way to measure bandwidth was in "Libraries of Congress" expressed as a function of time?
Can't we just stick to the standards?
A reminder for those that haven't been paying attention: data size and bandwith is measured in "Libraries of Congress" Size comparisons for large objects is always done in "Volkswagen Beetles"
Good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Tablespoons per second. At that rate you can fill a two liter soda bottle with data in just over two minutes!
100 Gigabit Ethernet, here we come! (Score:3, Informative)
Disputed record (Score:4, Funny)
I admit the distance wasn't far, but the burst rate was 24 TBytes/sec.
This means that in 0,000285714285714 seconds (Score:2)
Future means faster speeds (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the worlds fastest...Cisco did 8x that. (Score:3, Informative)
If only PCs had this bus speed... (Score:2)
Wire once (Score:2)
Re:Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
These things need to be thousands of times faster than your home connection because each one will carry thousands of times more data.
Its no good one single person having all that bandwidth if there is nobody else to talk to at that speed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I multiply that out, I get 1.990656e+9
That's about 2 Gbps
So, you could fit about 7000 of these uncompressed video streams over the 14 Tb/s link, unless I'm screwing up the calculation someplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right. That's what I get for trying to do arithmetic in Bash and trusting my own ability to count digits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure somewhere like that gets them directly from the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If this test was 30 seconds (Score:4, Funny)
20 GOTO 10
Re: (Score:2)
There are those people who are interested in transferring their consciousness to a computer.
Estimates of the bytes needed to represent the human mind range from as high as Von Neumann's 10^20 bits (over ten million terrabytes) to as little as 10^9 bits (1 millionth of Tb), with other estimates falling in the middle of the logarithmic scale. The low end estimates discount the possibility that information that is not available to the conscious min
Re: (Score:2)