Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
Yes. The whole system was organized around the FedEx shipping schedule, including when the trucks would show up in Wiamea Canyon, Kauai (no later than noon, local time). Labels would be preprinted and boxes would be ready to go, as there was about 1/2 hour from end of tape spin to beginning of the shipping window. On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Pete Templin wrote: -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:58 PM To: David G. Andersen Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... BTW, when I did VLBI for the Navy, we used to move literally tons of tapes around the world per month and achieved sustained bandwidths > 1 Gbps, albeit with FED-EX, not routers. Does this take into account the delay from encapsulating the tapes into a FED-EX packet and assigning the appropriate layer 1 header, then the queueing delays experienced while awaiting an open buffer on the next FED-EX truck? Pete Templin IP Network Engineer TexLink Communications (210) 892-4183 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. Phone : 703-293-9601 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Our New Multicast Workshop : http://www.multicasttech.com/workshop
RE: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
-Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:58 PM To: David G. Andersen Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... BTW, when I did VLBI for the Navy, we used to move literally tons of tapes around the world per month and achieved sustained bandwidths > 1 Gbps, albeit with FED-EX, not routers. Does this take into account the delay from encapsulating the tapes into a FED-EX packet and assigning the appropriate layer 1 header, then the queueing delays experienced while awaiting an open buffer on the next FED-EX truck? Pete Templin IP Network Engineer TexLink Communications (210) 892-4183 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
--- Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 10 years ago there was no www. No HTML. 10 years > from now will find us using something we have not > yet thought of and at speeds that today look as > ridiculous as 100Mb/sec looked to the guys on the T1 > NSFnet a bunch of years ago. I think I understood the point you are trying to make here but just like to set the record straight. 10 years ago, there was www/html already. I was a visiting engineer at CERN's networking division between end of '92 and 6/93. www (port:80)traffic had already been flowing in the net there. One of my projects was to collect traffic volume by port and do some analysis of the network there. The volume of port:80 traffic was not high at the time but was definitely there. cheers! --Jessica __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
e-VLBI could easily live with a 1% packet loss rate, so I see no need for it to use TCP. (Much higher and the correlator hardware will probably start having trouble staying in sync.) The 1.8 Gbps igrid2002 demo used UDP, for example. http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/~rich/VLBI_web/igrid2002_index.html On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Cottrell, Les wrote: We have been talking to the radio astronomy people. We are aware they have such needs, however, I am unclear whether they have succeeded in transmitting single stream TCP application to application throughput of 900Mbits/s over 10,000km on a regular basis. Perhaps you could point me to whom to talk to. I am aware of the work of Richard Hughes-Jones of Manchester Alan Whitney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hans Hinteregger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hisao Uose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Craig Walker < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> University and others and the Radio Astronomy VLBI Data Transmission (see for example http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/~rich/VLBI_web/) since we have shared notes and talked together a lot on the high performance issues. My understanding is that for today they use special high performance tapes to ship the data around, and are actively looking at using the network. Today, yes, although the disk drive based Mark 5 system will be rapidly rolled out, as it will substantially reduce operating costs. http://web.haystack.mit.edu/e-vlbi/whitney.pdf (BTW, the Mk5 deployment plan http://ivscc.gsfc.nasa.gov/program/Mk5plan_disks.pdf involves buying a metric ton of shippable disk drives.) Tape shipping for the USNO VLBI correlator is on the order of $ 50K per month (not counting recorder maintenance), so the real question is, when will it be possible to ship 1 Gbps data by fiber cheaper than than by FedEx. As the data are loss tolerant, and as buffers are cheap, thus the interest in using worse than best effort bandwidth. (If anyone is interested in the this, I am trying to have an informal bar bof to discuss it at the SF IETF.) I cannot see how this is really relevant to NANOG and would suggest that it be taken off list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:23 PM To: Jason Slagle Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; fingers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular basis. Single stream at 900mbs over that distance? Where? Talk to folks that deal with radio telescopes. Alex Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. Phone : 703-293-9601 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Our New Multicast Workshop : http://www.multicasttech.com/workshop
RE: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
We have been talking to the radio astronomy people. We are aware they have such needs, however, I am unclear whether they have succeeded in transmitting single stream TCP application to application throughput of 900Mbits/s over 10,000km on a regular basis. Perhaps you could point me to whom to talk to. I am aware of the work of Richard Hughes-Jones of Manchester University and others and the Radio Astronomy VLBI Data Transmission (see for example http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/~rich/VLBI_web/) since we have shared notes and talked together a lot on the high performance issues. My understanding is that for today they use special high performance tapes to ship the data around, and are actively looking at using the network. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:23 PM To: Jason Slagle Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; fingers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... > On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when > >there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular > > basis. > > Single stream at 900mbs over that distance? Where? Talk to folks that deal with radio telescopes. Alex
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when > >there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular basis. > > Single stream at 900mbs over that distance? Where? Talk to folks that deal with radio telescopes. Alex
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
Thus spake "Hank Nussbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 03:53 PM 07-03-03 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > >Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone > >realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. > > Please document it so as to shame these I2 networks. Somehow, I > doubt you will be able to. Internet/2 is not interesting because it has big pipes; the public Internet has much bigger pipes and more of them. I/2 is interesting only because it has fewer users -- by two or three orders of magnitude -- and most/all of these users are connected by FastE or better. However, there is no need to waste funding buying uber-fast routers or GigE links around the globe just to learn how to tune stacks or apps. If high-speed TCP research is what you're doing, rig up a latency generator in your laboratory and do your tests that way, just like the TCPSAT folks. Spending millions of (probably taxpayer) dollars to win a meaningless record is unethical, IMHO. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
At 09:30 PM 07-03-03 -0800, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: Sure, given a link you don't have to share with production traffic and a lot of charity, it's possible to get TCP to do a lot of things. This doesn't make them a good idea (outside of those `special' environments.) 10 years ago there was no www. No HTML. 10 years from now will find us using something we have not yet thought of and at speeds that today look as ridiculous as 100Mb/sec looked to the guys on the T1 NSFnet a bunch of years ago. Problem is that TCP comes up against a wall. I have seen all too often ISPs in Europe contend with 150ms RTT and some user trying to do 30Mb/sec single TCP and not being able to even come close. In the US, where your general RTT is much lower, you haven't hit that wall just yet. But it will come. Then all the research that Internet2 and Geant have been doing at sites such as: http://p2p.internet2.edu/ http://www.web100.org/ http://www.researchchannel.org/tech/ihdtv.asp http://e2epi.internet2.edu/ will benefit all the commercial ISPs. -Hank
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
At 10:09 PM 07-03-03 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. See: http://www.psc.edu/networking/perf_tune.html for many details of tuning your TCP stack. Interesting that most of the links lead to places like PSC, VT, ANL, ORNL, UofHannover and NLANR. If commercial ISPs have been doing this stuff "on a regular basis", please let us know where it is documented since it is a bit well hidden. -Hank -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
At 03:53 PM 07-03-03 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. Please document it so as to shame these I2 networks. Somehow, I doubt you will be able to. -Hank -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when >there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular basis. Single stream at 900mbs over that distance? Where? Jason -- Jason Slagle - CCNP - CCDP /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail .
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
Dave Israel wrote: > There's no real "science" here. This is a geek publicity stunt. s/geek/funding/ Peter
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
RAS> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:25:17 -0500 RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen RAS> I think the objections here are three-fold: "Researchers take advantage of ideal conditions and huge funding to do a fraction of what network engineers do every day" just doesn't help ratings. This is the same mass media that predicted the end of the world when our calendars turned 2000. Alas, I suppose a thread about "American mass media stinks" would be just about as revolutionary as that on which they "reported". The difference is that NANOG posts are cheaper and at least somewhat more accurate. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:56:29PM +0200, fingers wrote: > > why is it that nanog'ers seem to display such aggression at this type of > thing? is it the article itself, the work the researchers are doing, or > the fact that they had the bandwidth and hardware to do it with? There is nothing wrong with trying to set speed records, trying to push tcp performance to its limits and maybe beyond, or holding contests to do any of the above. I think the objections here are three-fold: A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular basis. B) The extreme wastefulness of spending a million dollars to do it. C) The incredible (well ok maybe not that incredible, expected is more like it) lack of accuracy in the reporting of this story. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
AD> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:51:51 -0500 (EST) AD> From: Andrew Dorsett AD> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: AD> AD> > On the other hand, if you have the need for this kind of AD> > single stream performance, and the pipe to yourself, why AD> > not devise your own protocol with less overhead? AD> AD> Because then you'll violate the rules of the contest. :) AD> AD> http://lsr.internet2.edu H. Looks like someone could use _really_ big buffers and insane SACK. Knowing the pipe isn't being shared with other traffic, one can "tune" backoff and slow-start without worry about being cooperative... Yeah, it's still TCP. A sprint car with 250 deg @ 0.050" lift camshaft, 5.13:1 rear gears, and different left/right tire sizes is still a car. Both are about as useful in the real world. IOW, it's fun, but the focus is too narrow and certain parameters are totally incompatible with production requirements. I'd like to see a contest that attempts to maximize throughput _and_ simultaneous session count using a random mix of simulated client pipe sizes. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > On the other hand, if you have the need for this kind of > single stream performance, and the pipe to yourself, why not > devise your own protocol with less overhead? Because then you'll violate the rules of the contest. :) http://lsr.internet2.edu Andrew --- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:57:22PM -0500, Eric Germann wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? "Given enough thrust, pigs fly just fine...demonstrated by a professional driver on a closed track, please do not try this at home kids!" Sure, given a link you don't have to share with production traffic and a lot of charity, it's possible to get TCP to do a lot of things. This doesn't make them a good idea (outside of those `special' environments.) On the other hand, if you have the need for this kind of single stream performance, and the pipe to yourself, why not devise your own protocol with less overhead? --msa
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Scott Weeks wrote: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Adam Kujawski wrote: > : > : I'm going to launch a couple DAT tapes across the parking lot with a spud gun > : and see if I can achieve 923 Mb/s! > > Yer gonna need a big damn spud gun... :-) > > Contest Rules > > 1.A minimum of 100 megabytes must be transferred a minimum > terrestrial distance of 100 kilometers... Ok, how about a Ferrari full of DATs, on an Autobahn? :-)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 20:53 Europe/London, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. Fortunately, these days there are very few production networks press-releasing the size of their ISPnesses. Sean. (mine's bigger than yours, anyway)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, fingers wrote: > > > > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > > > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. > > > > What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data > > at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? > > what kind of production highway sees the kinds of cars that reach the > world land speed records? > > why is it that nanog'ers seem to display such aggression at this type of > thing? is it the article itself, the work the researchers are doing, or > the fact that they had the bandwidth and hardware to do it with? to be fair (as I was first to flame!) it is presented out of context in a poorly written and somewhat misleading news article Steve
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:56:29PM +0200, fingers wrote: > why is it that nanog'ers seem to display such aggression at this type of > thing? It is well established that wide-area networking has become the ego center of computing. -- - mdz
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 04:37 PM, David G. Andersen wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:09:51PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson quacked: On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. It's unusual, but it's not completely unheard of. One of the biggest sources of such data is VLBI (interferometry to measure the movement of the earth's crust), in which signals from geographically distributed measurement sites have to be recorded and correlated at a central site: http://web.haystack.edu/vlbi/vlbisystems.html The signals are massive. Right now they use specially made tape drives that can record 1Gb/s: ftp://web.haystack.edu/pub/mark4/memos/230.2.pdf ftp://web.haystack.edu/pub/mark4/memos/HDR_concept.PDF and they send the data around via airplanes. They'd love to be able to do real-time correlation of the data, but that involves collecting 6 of these feeds at a central site (more coming). The feeds must be capable of running unattended for up to 24 hours (86 terabytes each, or an aggregate of half a petabyte per day). VLBI is moving to hard drive replacements for the expensive 1 inch tapes currently used (known as Mark V). There are active projects for "e-VLBI" - at CRL in Japan http://www.ntt.co.jp/news/news01e/0107/010706.html and at Haystack Observatory in Massachusetts http://web.haystack.edu/e-vlbi/meeting.html In e-VLBI there is no need for reliable transmission and UDP is the way to go. I am still involved with this peripherally, especially with the idea that the traffic be sent "worse than best effort", so as not to collide with regular traffic. BTW, when I did VLBI for the Navy, we used to move literally tons of tapes around the world per month and achieved sustained bandwidths > 1 Gbps, albeit with FED-EX, not routers. Yes, backbones push more than a gigabit across links, but not as for a single flow of data. -Dave -- work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ I do not accept unsolicited commercial email. Do not spam me. Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. Phone : 703-293-9601 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Our New Multicast Workshop : http://www.multicasttech.com/workshop
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
> > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. > > What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data > at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? what kind of production highway sees the kinds of cars that reach the world land speed records? why is it that nanog'ers seem to display such aggression at this type of thing? is it the article itself, the work the researchers are doing, or the fact that they had the bandwidth and hardware to do it with? --Rob
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:57:22PM -0500, Eric Germann wrote: > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > > > Comments folks? > > I can only hope that the researchers actually spent $2000-$4000 on moving > the gigabit of data, pocketed the rest, and are now living in a tropical > foreign country with lots and lots of drugs and women, because anything > else would just be too sad for me to contemplate. Maybe that's why the two endpoints are LA and Amsterdam? Neither is tropical, but they have plenty of drugs and women. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
Hello; There was a 1.5 Gigabit per second uncompressed HDTV stream that was sent U Washington to DC. http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/next-gen.html True, that was sent RTP over UDP, but if I was going to send that data rate over a _dedicated_ link, I would use UDP. The very high bit rate applications I have been involved with could all tolerate some loss, and for the others, a little FEC could go a long way. On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 04:09 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. Phone : 703-293-9601 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Our New Multicast Workshop : http://www.multicasttech.com/workshop
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: > > On 3/7/2003 at 14:57:22 -0500, Eric Germann said: > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > > > Comments folks? > > Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, > and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth > of traffic, too. Or a 400,000pps attack :) Which we've seen
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: > Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, > and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth > of traffic, too. Doing the 923 Mbps for one stream may be non-trivial (heck, even doing 110 MB per second sustained to/from disk isn't trivial) but the real challenge would be having two of those setups each try to do 1 Gbps over a single connecting while sharing the 1 Gbps link without any slowdowns. (And no fair having 20 MB interface buffers in the routers.)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:09:51PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson quacked: > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. > > What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data > at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? > > Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this > (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. It's unusual, but it's not completely unheard of. One of the biggest sources of such data is VLBI (interferometry to measure the movement of the earth's crust), in which signals from geographically distributed measurement sites have to be recorded and correlated at a central site: http://web.haystack.edu/vlbi/vlbisystems.html The signals are massive. Right now they use specially made tape drives that can record 1Gb/s: ftp://web.haystack.edu/pub/mark4/memos/230.2.pdf ftp://web.haystack.edu/pub/mark4/memos/HDR_concept.PDF and they send the data around via airplanes. They'd love to be able to do real-time correlation of the data, but that involves collecting 6 of these feeds at a central site (more coming). The feeds must be capable of running unattended for up to 24 hours (86 terabytes each, or an aggregate of half a petabyte per day). Yes, backbones push more than a gigabit across links, but not as for a single flow of data. -Dave -- work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ I do not accept unsolicited commercial email. Do not spam me.
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
>It would have been nice if the reporter bothered to mention that "Internet >speed records" are measured in terabit meters per second. An article >about "Internet speed records" that doesn't include the actual record, or even >a definition of the term "Internet speed record", is hardly deserving of placement on the front of cnn.com. Slow news day? I'm sorry to inform you guys that cnn.com just picked this up from the BBC, yesterday. And the Beeb got the spin wrong, too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2822333.stm Peter --- Peter H. Salus Chief Knowledge Officer, Matrix NetSystems Ste. 3005001 Plaza on the LakeAustin, TX 78746 +1 512 697-0613 ---
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Adam Kujawski wrote: : : Quoting Eric Germann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: : : > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html : > : > Comments folks? : : I'm going to launch a couple DAT tapes across the parking lot with a spud gun : and see if I can achieve 923 Mb/s! Yer gonna need a big damn spud gun... :-) Contest Rules 1.A minimum of 100 megabytes must be transferred a minimum terrestrial distance of 100 kilometers... scott : It would have been nice if the reporter bothered to mention that "Internet : speed records" are measured in terabit meters per second. An article : about "Internet speed records" that doesn't include the actual record, or even : a definition of the term "Internet speed record", is hardly deserving of : placement on the front of cnn.com. Slow news day? : : -Adam :
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:09:51PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. > > What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data > at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? Probably not many, but it's quite possible. I've done 1 Gbps streams off a single box before, it's not much harder to take it out 150ms. Heck for their 60 second test, you could buy some GigE transit ports from someone with a STM64 across the pond and not even pay for it in 95th percentile. :) > Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this > (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. And you can't afford 20MB of RAM because...? -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that > they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data at 1 gigabit/s over a 150ms latency link? Just the fact that you need a ~20 megabyte TCP window size to achieve this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) seems kind of unusal to me. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
Quoting Eric Germann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? I'm going to launch a couple DAT tapes across the parking lot with a spud gun and see if I can achieve 923 Mb/s! It would have been nice if the reporter bothered to mention that "Internet speed records" are measured in terabit meters per second. An article about "Internet speed records" that doesn't include the actual record, or even a definition of the term "Internet speed record", is hardly deserving of placement on the front of cnn.com. Slow news day? -Adam
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On 3/7/2003 at 15:50:40 -0500, Steve Goldstein said: > At 8:34 PM + 3/7/03, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > >So whats good about this? > > 923 Mbps with TCP. --S According to CNN: "Scientists were able to get 93 percent efficiency out of their record-setting connection because they didn't have to share bandwidth, they received donated equipment in excess of $1 million and they changed the setting of Internet protocols to allow faster data transfers, Newman said." So, you turn down/off all the parts of TCP that allow you to share bandwidth properly, crank up the window and packet sizes, and suddenly, TCP is pretty damn efficient for a one-way transfer. There's no real "science" here. This is a geek publicity stunt. -Dave
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:43:28PM -0500, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > More detailed technical information on the periodic I2 Land Speed > Record contest can be found at http://lsr.internet2.edu/ > > The answer to "what's good about this" is left as an exercise to the reader. This might have something to do with it: Contest Rules: 1. A minimum of 100 megabytes must be transferred a minimum terrestrial distance of 100 kilometers with a minimum of two router hops in each direction between the source node and the destination node across one or more operational and production-oriented high-performance research and education networks. Examples of such networks are Abilene, ESnet, CA*net3, NREN and GEANT. Production commercial networks need not apply, 'lest someone realize that they blow away these speed records on a regular basis. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
More detailed technical information on the periodic I2 Land Speed Record contest can be found at http://lsr.internet2.edu/ The answer to "what's good about this" is left as an exercise to the reader. ---Rob "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What am I missing here, OC48=2.5Gb, OC192=10Gb, theres native 1GigE, native > 10GigE > > So whats good about this? > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: > > > > > On 3/7/2003 at 14:57:22 -0500, Eric Germann said: > > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > > > > > Comments folks? > > > > Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, > > and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth > > of traffic, too. > > > > -Dave > > > >
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
What am I missing here, OC48=2.5Gb, OC192=10Gb, theres native 1GigE, native 10GigE So whats good about this? On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: > > On 3/7/2003 at 14:57:22 -0500, Eric Germann said: > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > > > Comments folks? > > Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, > and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth > of traffic, too. > > -Dave > >
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:57:22PM -0500, Eric Germann wrote: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? I can only hope that the researchers actually spent $2000-$4000 on moving the gigabit of data, pocketed the rest, and are now living in a tropical foreign country with lots and lots of drugs and women, because anything else would just be too sad for me to contemplate. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
... in an unrelated story, the RIAA's Jack Valenti was seen wandering down Sunset blvd, foaming at the mouth while shopping at a used-backhoe lot - Original Message - From: "Eric Germann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:57 PM Subject: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? > > > == > Eric GermannCCTec > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Van Wert OH 45801 > http://www.cctec.comPh: 419 968 2640 > Fax: 603 825 5893 > > "The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the > extent of one’s ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be > more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky" > > -- Jon Giorgini of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory >
Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
On 3/7/2003 at 14:57:22 -0500, Eric Germann said: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth of traffic, too. -Dave
