I like it, you may be on to something. So we basically just need to convince the gamers to become good old fashioned bums that ride around on freight trains all day...
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Gamers have to actually get in a RR car and physically fight. Much more > realistic and very low latency. > > *From:* Mathew Howard > *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 11:06 AM > *To:* af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] bulk data transfer > > The gamers won't like the latency at all... > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> Time to invest in RR stock. Screw fiber. >> >> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) >> *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 10:33 AM >> *To:* af >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] bulk data transfer >> >> Well, assuming that the rail was moving at a similar speed to the trucks >> - say 60MPH, And the rail cars were ~60 feet in length, and had the same >> volume as the 53 foot truck. >> >> 60MPH = 316,800 FPH / 60 Feet = 5280 Railcars per hour, 88 railcars per >> minute, 1.46666 rail cars per second. >> >> Once the first one arrived, you'd have a continous feed of 26857.6Pbit/S >> >> Get to work on the automatic tape transcription device. You only need to >> write ~557,136 tapes per second, and don't forget loading them on the >> train... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> No, what would it be if you had continuous railcar transport??? We >>> could eliminate all the fiber with railroads! >>> >>> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 10:15 AM >>> *To:* af >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] bulk data transfer >>> >>> Chicago to LA is 30 hours by truck. >>> >>> Typical 53 foot trailer is 3816 cubic feet. >>> >>> A LTO-7 tape can hold 6TB >>> The volume of a LTO-7 tape is just under 0.01 cubic foot >>> (0.00839973....) We'll use 0.01 cubic foot. >>> >>> A 53 foot trailer packed completely full can hold 381600 Tapes X 6TB = >>> 2,289,600TB, or 2289 PB. >>> >>> 2,289,600TB/30hours = 76320TB/hr. >>> or >>> 1272TB/min >>> or >>> 21.2TB/sec. >>> or >>> 169.6Tbit/second. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Robert Andrews <i...@avantwireless.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I can't remember which but there was a nanog presentation a few years >>>> ago about max bandwidth and the top of the chart was still listed as a 747 >>>> cargo full of optical media.. Now as far as getting that data on and off >>>> the media.... >>>> >>>> On 04/17/2017 07:36 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: >>>> >>>>> For the seed you need to understand this quote: >>>>> >>>>> "/Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes >>>>> hurtling down the highway/." —Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer >>>>> Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6. >>>>> >>>>> I'd highly recommend you think about how to move that seed via Fedex or >>>>> UPS. You're already going to be storing the data somewhere, if >>>>> possible, take whatever it is your storing it on (or backing it up on) >>>>> to the origin location and copy it to it.... *then* ship it to and >>>>> install it in your datacenter. It is likely that the cost of doing >>>>> this will actually be less than the cost of buying a circuit which will >>>>> do this in a reasonable amount of time, especially if you are buying a >>>>> piece of hardware to store this data (likely). >>>>> >>>>> For the updates, 4pb per year is just over 1Mb/s if I did the math >>>>> correctly.... This is in the realm of normal internet, assuming the >>>>> data grows gradually throughout a year. >>>>> >>>>> I'll let others point you toward a 10Gig wave if you'd rather not use >>>>> the "move media" approach. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Zach Underwood <zunder1...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:zunder1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I work for a medical data company and we have a possible project >>>>> where will be getting data from a human genome company. What would >>>>> be a option for move the data between our datacenter and there >>>>> datacenter? We are in the southeast and they are in the midwest. >>>>> The >>>>> data amount would be a seed of 5pb and growth of 4pb per year. The >>>>> networking on our side would be 100gbit LAN. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) >>>>> My website <http://zachunderwood.me> >>>>> advance-networking.com <http://advance-networking.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./ >>>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >>>>> forre...@imach.com >>>>> <mailto:forre...@imach.com> | http://www.packetflux.com >>>>> <http://www.packetflux.com/> >>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> < >>>>> http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* >>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> >>> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* >> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> >> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >> >> >
