43Tbps Over A Single Fiber

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The only thing faster than 43Tbps on a single fiber, is the speed at which the "downloading porn" jokes will start in the comments section. :D

In a more user-friendly unit, 43Tbps is equivalent to a transfer rate of around 5.4 terabytes per second — or 5,375 gigabytes to be exact. Yes, if you had your hands on DTU’s new fiber-optic network, you could transfer the entire contents of your 1TB hard drive in a fifth of a second — or, to put it another way, a 1GB DVD rip in 0.2 milliseconds.
 
Given the cost of a 10Gbps optic and other required equipment I don't even want to see the cost of a 43Tbps optic and router.
 
I know they put into terms that normal people understand, but by the time this speed hits consumer level (if ever), a 1TB hard drive will look tiny in comparison to what's available. It's made for the backhaul stuff. If they get this going in data centers and stuff, and Gb consumer lies are abundant, then I'd see cloud based stuff getting much bigger and more popular, and standard HDD's might not even be used much. At least not the large ones. A single TB would be the OS drive and local storage, and everything else would be cloud based and still be fast like current local storage.

I wonder if YouTube would still stutter?
 
43Tbps?!?!?

43 total beat-off per second is a hell of a pace. I'm not sure I could keep that up for more than 5 minutes.

;)

2.png
 
you could transfer the entire contents of your 1TB hard drive in a fifth of a second — or, to put it another way, a 1GB DVD rip in 0.2 milliseconds
WRONG. noob. If there was a 1TB drive that could transfer at those speeds AND over USB/eSATA/Firewire/Thunderbolt, then you have my attention.

And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??
 
There would be no purpose of mass storage with that much speed.

Someone will have to store the data. Although no one would have the processing power to give individual users anywhere near this bandwidth all at once. And its not like your PC could send or receive data at this rate either. I mean this is faster than the L1 cache on the processor.
 
WRONG. noob. If there was a 1TB drive that could transfer at those speeds AND over USB/eSATA/Firewire/Thunderbolt, then you have my attention.

And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??

you could transfer the entire contents of your 1TB hard drive in a fifth of a second — or, to put it another way, a 1GB DVD rip in 0.2 milliseconds

He said transfer, not rip
And yes, from a single computer your storage would bottle neck that transfer, and then your 1GB network connection to the 43Tbs router
 
How the hell did they certify 5.4 Terabytes per second? I just.. don't understand.

Do you have a ram drive or a massive series of storage arrays ready to pump that through a switch to switch connection and distribute it to the rest of the network? I just.. how do you do a sustained transfer test of that volume? Bounce data back and fourth to equate to that volume of data?
 
WRONG. noob. If there was a 1TB drive that could transfer at those speeds AND over USB/eSATA/Firewire/Thunderbolt, then you have my attention.

And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??

I just want to quote a post where Cerulean directly insults Steve while being fundamentally wrong in the process.
 
In other news telecoms are interested in burying this technology and using old tech so they can maintain that artificial data caps are necessary.
 
I just want to quote a post where Cerulean directly insults Steve while being fundamentally wrong in the process.
No insults at Steve. Insults at the one who wrote the article Steve is linking to on ExtremeTech :)
 
And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??

Careful there, the disc might spin so fast it will go back in time. :eek:
 
We had a guy experimenting with motor speeds in old school CD drives (caddy days) and all he could really do was spin them fast enough to either 1) cause smoke to start or 2) crack the CD.

It was fun.
 
WRONG. noob. If there was a 1TB drive that could transfer at those speeds AND over USB/eSATA/Firewire/Thunderbolt, then you have my attention.

And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??

I have both...

...but you can't see them.
 
I want it just so people could drool over my speedtest screenshot in the signature. :)
 
WRONG. noob. If there was a 1TB drive that could transfer at those speeds AND over USB/eSATA/Firewire/Thunderbolt, then you have my attention.

And likewise, ripping a 1GB DVD in 0.2 milliseconds?? What do you have for an ODD? a 5835728357x speed DVD/BluRay burner that can safely spin a disk fast enough to break the sound barrier without shattering the optical media??

As already pointed out, the guy wasn't say "ripping", but the result thereof, which you could easily hold in RAM these days.

That said, if optical media were used quite a bit more, a solution akin to Kenwood's TrueX 72x CDROM could come back into vogue. I doubt we'll see or even need such a thing if you can transfer data at this speed (plus, can you imagine the lawsuits complaining from studios claiming that such a drive exists only to simplify pirating content)?
 
Careful there, the disc might spin so fast it will go back in time. :eek:

Lets see a DVD normally can spin at what 1600 RPM, or 26 and 2/3 RPS, so at 5835728357x that's 155619422853 and 1/3 RPS. A dvd's circumference is approximate 15 inches, 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile that translates to 36841719 miles per second, or almost 200 times the speed of light.... whoo that's a fast moving disc!

Yeah I'm bored and wanted to do some math :D
 
Lets see a DVD normally can spin at what 1600 RPM, or 26 and 2/3 RPS, so at 5835728357x that's 155619422853 and 1/3 RPS. A dvd's circumference is approximate 15 inches, 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile that translates to 36841719 miles per second, or almost 200 times the speed of light.... whoo that's a fast moving disc!

Yeah I'm bored and wanted to do some math :D

LOL, that's awesome!
 
Lets see a DVD normally can spin at what 1600 RPM, or 26 and 2/3 RPS, so at 5835728357x that's 155619422853 and 1/3 RPS. A dvd's circumference is approximate 15 inches, 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile that translates to 36841719 miles per second, or almost 200 times the speed of light.... whoo that's a fast moving disc!

Yeah I'm bored and wanted to do some math :D

+2 internets for you sir
 
I know they put into terms that normal people understand, but by the time this speed hits consumer level (if ever), a 1TB hard drive will look tiny in comparison to what's available. It's made for the backhaul stuff.
Afaict these "crazy speed down a single fiber" runs are just done to get the headlines. Just like the world record runs of steam locomotives were. Beyond a certain point the technology to squeeze more data down a single fiber gets more expensive than just laying or renting more fibers.
 
How the hell did they certify 5.4 Terabytes per second? I just.. don't understand.

Do you have a ram drive or a massive series of storage arrays ready to pump that through a switch to switch connection and distribute it to the rest of the network? I just.. how do you do a sustained transfer test of that volume? Bounce data back and fourth to equate to that volume of data?

I doubt they store any of the data for the test. Think of the interconnect between a CPU and a GPU. Data can be transferred at up to 8gbps on a PCIe 3.0 x1 link. So a graphics card might need to move upwards of 64gbps between devices. It's most likely just a data stream which is processed on both ends and some type of checksum is calculated to verify the data is accurate. The data doesn't need to be stored because once it has been processed it won't need to be used again.
 
What everyone is forgetting is that right now there is simply not the money in the state budgets to rip up every major interstate in the country to replace the backbones of the main trunks. Without replacing them everything is basically going over six to eight OC-48 lines. That is part of the reason the military decided to create their own lines because they want to be able to control what goes over them and can upgrade them if necessary.

And the cable companies simply don't own enough the network to make it profitable to allow fast traffic only there part if all the traffic that generates money if from another network that will not give them more revenue. The bells were given money by the government to upgrade the backbones, they did it a couple times as cheap as possible then they got broken up and none of the resulting companies (which got to keep the assets from the larger company), was willing to honor the deals the government stuck with MA Bell.

Personally I think they should just turn the backbones over to the states and give any Federal Funding to maintain them to the states and then let the people in the states know the status of the money spent and the progress made. If the states can't do it, then turn around and sell the contract to a private firm that only maintains the backbone to avoid conflicts of interest. Kinda like what they did with the FED.
 
Back
Top