Zoom to 1Tbps data transfer

[sman]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/133017/20160212/forget-slow-internet-british-researchers-create-fiber-optic-cables-that-can-send-data-50-000-faster-than-average-broadband.htm

 

 

British researchers can possibly put an end to slow Internet with the creation of fiber optic cables that can send data 50,000 times faster than the current average broadband.

 

Researchers at University College London's Optical Networks Group (ONG) explain that current commercial optical transmission systems are capable of receiving single channel data rates of up to 100 Gbps. However, the team is working with equipment that can manage data of up to 1 Tbps.

 

Robert Maher, Ph.D., lead researcher at ONG - a research group within the Electronic & Electrical Engineering Department at UCL, says that they have achieved speeds of 1.125 Tbps, which is the highest throughput ever recorded using a single receiver. The high speed is meant to address the growing demand for fast Internet data.

 

[AdvancedSetup]

Be careful clicking that link. Techtimes has an overabundance of advertising going on there.

Odd, Mitsubishi also claiming something like that too

http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/news/2016/0215_print.html

[sman]

Seems both of different techniques..

 

BTW, even if one goes to 'rediff.com' one would see, many links/ads, and in 'Techtimes' i see only links to articles, maybe due to Adblocks.. Anyway thanks for the word of caution..

[David H. Lipman]

It's Fiber Optics. 

 

Using Fiber to the Premises ( FTTP )  has that potential and more.  Even in the early days of networking, a Fiber Distributed Data Interface ( FDDI ) Ring would be used in the corporate backbone.

 

Today 10Gb/s over twisted pair is not uncommon so why wouldn't >1Tb/s fiber optic be a reality.

 

Even Cable content providers use Fiber Optics.  However not as a delivery vehicle but as a long haul trunk.  The reason, extremely high bandwidth for long distances.

 

The reason why DSL is and is still successful is the move from Frequency-Shift Keying ( FSK )  to Quadrature Amplitude Modulation ( QAM ).  QAM allows for a higher bandwidth over traditional copper pairs (aka; Plain Old Telephone System or POTS ).  The reason, the dynamics of a transmission line.  As the distance increases the impedance of the transmission line also increases so the bandwidth must be reduced.  In other words, the transmission line's ability to convey traffic at a given speed is dictated by the distance.

 

Today you'll see that a large building will be fed fiber optics.  The suites or apartments however will get Very High Bit-Rate DSL ( VDSL ) that will deliver Telephony, Internet and video content.  The reason being the relatively short distance between the DSL Modem and the Digital subscriber line access multiplexer ( DSLAM ) which would be at the complex's demarcation point ( demarc ).

 

QAM is now an adaptive technology seen throughout content distribution points.  It is the digital TV signal and it is in the fiber optics.  What people don't realize is that there is a mix of technology being used and the medium of which content is provided will vary based upon the environment, costs and objectives.  As I expressed for a building complex where FTTP is used to the complex and VDSL is used to the suites or apartments, systems like Verizon FiOS use FTTP and cable.  The demarc for Verizon FiOS is at an Optical Network Terminal ( ONT ) .  Verizon can provision the ONT to use cable to the Set Top Boxes and the Internet Router using Multimedia over Coax Alliance ( MoCA )  standards.  The reason is fiber connections are difficult and costly while F-Connectors and RG-6 cable is easy and inexpensive. 

[sman]

Oh.. find both articles are related..

 

BTW is it not necessary for the storage/memory access rates at server/client ends to be compatible to the network bandwidth needs, are in sync for proper benefit of the Fibre Optic technology??

[David H. Lipman]

They do not have to be in sync.  They will be bridged as well as being buffered.

[sman]

Let me be even more elaborate..

 

At the server end, the data has to be retrieved from the storage medium, the data access rate (read/write from the storage & also memory access) , which has to be at par/better than the rate at which it has to be transferred over the FO carriers..

 

Similarly at the receiving, client side, the clients system (desktop/lapiop) storage medium data access rates (read/write) & memory (RAM) needs to be also at par/better than the data download rate, for proper benefit of the faster internet speed..

 

Now, is all device/peripherals access rates technology at sync. to embrace the FO technology?? Tks. in advance..

[AdvancedSetup]

No, your computer would not be able to sustain a 1TB data connection or anything even close. I have to run but I'm sure if I'm not back before then that David can explain why. Though service providers would be at the 1TB speed not the end users. The end user is often a large magnitude lower. Example is that most data centers already do 10Gbps and some larger ones are at 100Gbps but even most businesses are well below 1Gbps and often at 100Mbps or lower due to costs. So because the technology is there does not mean you'd even get close to those speeds at home.

 

For an interesting read, read up on satellite IP transmission. It was never designed for it and the timing gaps. Amazing they're able to even get it to work period but it does work reasonably well.

[David H. Lipman]

There will be no FTTP with 1Tb/s to an end-user.  Just like I mentioned a FDDI Ring is a corporate backbone such high speeds are relegated to corporate-2-corporate and enterprise-2-corporate.  The cost are prohibitive to an end-user.  When you have a Metropolitan Area Network ( MAN )  they will 10GB/s backbones but use a higher throughput speed to aggregate that into their enterprise.  Money and costs are a driver.  It will take a while before >100Mb/s reaches the home.  It is possible to get 500Mb/s through FiOS but you would have to be a corporate user with a "need" to pay the premium price.

 

One of the biggest bottlenecks to high speed broadband isn't the ISP but the premise equipment.  To keep costs low they use inexpensive chip-sets and board technology that will induce a greater latency.

 

Go back a deacade or so and look at a common SOHO Router like the BEFSR41.  It's WAN speed was 10Mb/s.  When it was first released the assumption was that no SOHO LAN would be at a speed greater than 10Mb/s.  It takes a while for high speed technology to tickle down and costs be lowered through new manufacturing techniques and mass production.  It was the rise of Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification ( DOCSIS ) 2.0 and then DOCSIS 3.0 that drove the Routers to use newer, faster, chip-sets.  Now they are 100Mb/s based.  If you look at FiOS and their MoCA Routers they are 1Gb/s based because fiber has the bandwidth.  If the WAN can be 500Mb/s then the Router has to be capable of handling it and thus 1Gb/s.

 

BTW:  I have used Hughes Satelite Internet in an implementation we called the "Dirty Internet" for a communication exercise I supported.

[sman]

So, we are stil a far cry-off in time for the newest technology.. Thanks @David & @AS..

[David H. Lipman]

I am pretty happy with symmetrical 50Mb/s FiOS and I can go to 100Mb/s symmetrical FiOS by just a phone call.

 

Hell, in 1990 I took a course at AT&T for StarLAN Networking.  That was 1Mb/s unshielded twisted pair, on a Local area Network ( LAN ).

[AdvancedSetup]

Here is more so what I was meaning as it relates to 1TB delivery to the desktop - assuming all restrictions on hardware and costs were removed the underlying sysetm still would not support such high rates of data transfer.

Please review the following articles for more details on the issues involved.


WAN File Server Problems - SMB Limitations Over the VPN, Internet, WAN
http://www.stevenjordan.net/2012/12/university-wisconsin-stout-wan-file.html

Server Message Block
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block

This article really puts it into perspective that should be easier for most to understand.
Realize that this is 10Gbps not 1,000Gbps which is what TB is.

SMB performance over 10 GBit
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1123534

Routers can handle such large data speed transfers but your desktop computer is not going to even come close to being able to save that data as fast as it's being sent and asked to save it.


Performance Tuning for File Servers
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/dn567661%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Using file copy to measure storage performance – Why it’s not a good idea and what you should do instead
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/josebda/2014/08/18/using-file-copy-to-measure-storage-performance-why-its-not-a-good-idea-and-what-you-should-do-instead/

To scale out or not to scale out, that is the question
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2013/12/05/to-scale-out-or-not-to-scale-out-that-is-the-question/

SMB 3.1.1 Encryption in Windows 10
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/openspecification/archive/2015/09/09/smb-3-1-1-encryption-in-windows-10.aspx

 

[sman]

Thanks to your links @AS, which I'll sure check out and get back..