+1 to Gene, I have shared the exact same confusion on this thread. For satellites moving so fast (horizon to horizon in ~90sec), any network functions above L2 (e.g. routing, caching, etc) feel like they’d spend all their time churning. Keeping the satellites as bent-pipe repeaters between a dishy and a ground station effectively hides their orbital mobility from all other layers in the network and allows for stability in other layers.
Now, caching *at* the dishy, on the other hand… sounds like a great idea! Caching at the ground station as well, though that doesn’t get you any gains in terms of minimizing satellite network bandwidth. Spencer > On Apr 20, 2023, at 14:34, Eugene Chang via Starlink > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Friends, > As I follow the discussion of putting computers on satellite, I can > understand the attraction if I apply the discussion with a satellite and > server above my location, suspended by a skyhook. The geometry is very easy > (some variations of a triangle). However, with an LEO satellite (or MEO), > most of the time the server is not overhead, it is hidden by the horizon. > > Have I missed comments (or naively not understood comments) about how the > solutions work when the server is not overhead? I wanted to hear about data > locality and how the desired behavior varies according to the position of the > server. Does some of the proposed edge computing imply (or assume) the data > is needed on many satellites so that there is always a server overhead with > the needed data? (Then we have lots of data synchronization challenges.) > Clearly, this suggests there is a scaling problem for edge computing > solutions because for a single server, most of the time the computer is not > at the edge near me. > > What am I missing? > > Gene > ----------------------------------- > Eugene Chang > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > +1-781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > > > > > >> On Apr 20, 2023, at 2:24 AM, David Fernández via Starlink >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> Well, O3b MPower (MEO satellites) is offering independent one hop >> dedicated access to the (Microsoft Azure) cloud as "killer >> application". If the cloud is on the satellite, half-hop. >> >> Starlink GWs are near Google Cloud datacenters. >> >> Blue Origin is on the mission to move Amazon Cloud to orbit, >> eventually, maybe, leaving the Earth as a garden to enjoy, without any >> industry on the surface (in a century, maybe). Kuiper will offer one >> hop access to Amazon Cloud, then half-hop. >> >> What seems a crazy idea today will be eventually implemented later, >> like Starlink (Teledesic failed, fingers crossed Starlink does not go >> bankrupt, although I would expect it be saved by Department of >> Defense, as Iridium was saved). >> >> As we were discussing recently, maybe starting with anycast DNS >> servers on satellites is a first step to consider, before embarking >> any other type of cloud servers. >> >> Regards, >> >> David >> >>> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:33:00 +0000 >>> From: Ulrich Speidel <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Michael Richardson' >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, 'starlink' >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] DataCenters in Space (was Re: fiber IXPs in >>> space) >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> <sy4pr01mb697983bb5deb1b2aa0b2690bce...@sy4pr01mb6979.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com >>> >>> <mailto:sy4pr01mb697983bb5deb1b2aa0b2690bce...@sy4pr01mb6979.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>> >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> Where do I even start? The lack of substantial bandwidth between space and >>> ground? The extra latency between ground and space compared to terrestrial >>> cloud, especially as terrestrial cloud edge can move much closer to >>> customers when space can't? The fact that every LEO satellite is both a few >>> 100 km from every customer and out of the customer's range depending on when >>> you look? That low temperatures in space don't mean superconductive chips >>> that produce zero heat, and that that heat is difficult to get rid of in >>> space? That generating power in space is orders of magnitude more expensive >>> than on the ground? >>> >>> Just because Starlink can provide a service somewhere between DSL and low to >>> medium grade fibre to a few million around the globe it's not "done". Even >>> with 10x the number of satellites and a couple of times the current capacity >>> per satellite, Starlink isn't going to supply more than a couple of 100 >>> million at best, and that's not even accounting for growth in demand from >>> IOT... >>> >>> -- >>> >>> **************************************************************** >>> Dr. Ulrich Speidel >>> >>> School of Computer Science >>> >>> Room 303S.594 (City Campus) >>> Ph: (+64-9)-373-7599 ext. 85282 >>> >>> The University of Auckland >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ >>> **************************************************************** >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
