923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html Comments folks? ========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 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
... 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" <ekgermann@cctec.com> To: <nanog@nanog.org> 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 Germann CCTec ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 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
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 <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Quoting Eric Germann <ekgermann@cctec.com>:
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
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Adam Kujawski wrote: : : Quoting Eric Germann <ekgermann@cctec.com>: : : > 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 :
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? :-)
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
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 --- <zerocool@netpath.net> 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."
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 Hmmmm. 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 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com 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 <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
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
--- Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> 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/
participants (12)
-
Adam Kujawski -
Andrew Dorsett -
Andy Dills -
E.B. Dreger -
Eric Germann -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jessica Yu -
Majdi S. Abbas -
Miles Fidelman -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Scott Weeks -
Stretch