More than 10GBit LAN? (for everyone)

[Samael]

Hi there! 

 

Thunderbolt 3 give's us 40Gbit (Bi-directional) but LAN (which is more 'professional' solution) is still 10Gbit max. 

 

Thank you!

[nvpendsey]

Well considering the fact that thunderbolt cable cost like 10x the cost of LAN cable and the fact that 10 Gbit is good enough for almost any workload and the fact the we don't have storage to completely utilize to bandwidth of 10 Gb LAN.......The fact you gave is completely useless. Not to even mention the lack of support on most mobos for Thunderbolt.

 

[RedWulf]

Cows weigh around a thousand lbs, pigs weigh a couple hundred, why is pork still used 

[Electronics Wizardy]

There are lan connections that are 100gbps. Its datacenter only though.

[Samael]

[deleted]

[Samael]

21 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

There are lan connections that are 100gbps. Its datacenter only though.

I asked "more than 10Gbit for everyone", meaning not just for datacenters.

31 minutes ago, nvpendsey said:

Well considering the fact that thunderbolt cable cost like 10x the cost of LAN cable and the fact that 10 Gbit is good enough for almost any workload and the fact the we don't have storage to completely utilize to bandwidth of 10 Gb LAN.......The fact you gave is completely useless. Not to even mention the lack of support on most mobos for Thunderbolt.

 

Gigabyte's new Z170 mobos have Thunderbolt 3. About utilizing the bandwidth - how about Synology DS2015xs?

[beavo451]

1 hour ago, Samael said:

Hi there! 

 

Thunderbolt 3 give's us 40Gbit (Bi-directional) but LAN (which is more 'professional' solution) is still 10Gbit max. 

 

Thank you!

Is there a question or something in there?

[Samael]

3 minutes ago, beavo451 said:

Is there a question or something in there?

Is there 20/50/100Gbit LAN coming any time soon?

[beavo451]

7 minutes ago, Samael said:

Is there 20/50/100Gbit LAN coming any time soon?

Well depends on your definition of "soon", but no.

[Samael]

1 minute ago, beavo451 said:

Well depends on your definition of "soon", but no.

ok, thank you!

 

sorry, if I sounded rude ;-)

[Mikensan]

10gbit ethernet doesn't have a place in the home, which is why you have >=10gb in datacenters. Pulling a number out of my arse, I'd say over 90% of consumers can't even saturate 1gb let alone 10gb. As SSDs start becoming cheaper and more popular in the house, then there may be a rise in demand.

 

Thunderbolt isn't intended to be used only for Ethernet / IP communications. It is all about jamming an entire computer's I/O through a single cable. 

[BrightCandle]

5 hours ago, Mikensan said:

10gbit ethernet doesn't have a place in the home, which is why you have >=10gb in datacenters. Pulling a number out of my arse, I'd say over 90% of consumers can't even saturate 1gb let alone 10gb. As SSDs start becoming cheaper and more popular in the house, then there may be a rise in demand.

 

Thunderbolt isn't intended to be used only for Ethernet / IP communications. It is all about jamming an entire computer's I/O through a single cable. 

 

Any hard drive sold in the last 10 years can saturate 1Gbit/s, 100MB/s. Near on 100% of people with a NAS can max out a 1gbit/s connection, and while I wouldn't be surprised that only 90% of most homes don't have a NAS those that do can absolutely get additional performance from higher than 1gbit/s network.

[skywake]

1 hour ago, BrightCandle said:

Any hard drive sold in the last 10 years can saturate 1Gbit/s, 100MB/s. Near on 100% of people with a NAS can max out a 1gbit/s connection, and while I wouldn't be surprised that only 90% of most homes don't have a NAS those that do can absolutely get additional performance from higher than 1gbit/s network.

Yes it's true that pretty much anything that's a performance drive will go over 110MB/s. Effectively saturating 1Gbps. But there are a few problems with that theory.

 

For a start most "NAS drives" are designed to be more energy efficient rather than fast, they'll run at maybe 115MB/s or so. And if people aren't buying them? They're probably buying something like a WD-Green which doesn't even reach 100MB/s. When a high end drive is really going fast? We're talking 160MB/s, maybe 170MB/s. So with a single drive we're not really that much above 1Gbps for 2x 1Gbps LAG to be worth it let alone 10Gbps. All of which can be solved with multiple drives right? Well sure. But at this point you have to ask yourself what the average consumer will get. I'd wager that the average consumer will have a 2 drive RAID 1. That's if they use RAID at all. And RAID 1 won't give you any performance advantage with most setups.

 

For 10Gbps to be a significant improvement? SSDs are going to need to get cheaper. 

[Guest]

40gig is becoming quiote common in most servers these days.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, Windspeed36 said:

40gig is becoming quiote common in most servers these days.

 

17 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

There are lan connections that are 100gbps. Its datacenter only though.

 

17 hours ago, Samael said:

I asked "more than 10Gbit for everyone", meaning not just for datacenters.

Gigabyte's new Z170 mobos have Thunderbolt 3. About utilizing the bandwidth - how about Synology DS2015xs?

Anything available in the server/datacenter realm can be used at home, if you want to pay for it. When people say server only what they are actually saying is it is beyond what any normal person would be willing to spend for something at home.

 

You can go out right now and buy 2 40Gb PCI-E NICs and direct connect two computers or chuck in a 40Gb switch as well. Nothing other than price is stopping us.

 

What you actually need to do is step back and first ask "Do I actually need this amount of bandwidth" followed up by the second question "Can I actually use it". The answer should in almost every case be no for both.

 

I run 10Gb at home and have for some time now, it's nice but I certainly don't need it. I do however make full use of it. So for me it is no to question 1 and yes to question 2.

[porina]

I'm frustrated by the lack of affordable >gigabit non-teamed networking solutions. Affordable doesn't have to mean dirt cheap. My bite point would be say 100USD per card to do a point to point connection only, so no switch cost. Those mysterious used fiber cards in an old video don't seem to exist around here.

 

I'd agree with @BrightCandle that it is trivial to saturate gigabit. Just read any large file from one system to another. I don't know how many years you need to go back to find a HD not capable of 100GB/s read speeds, and even a modern cheap SSDs will be 5x that. In theory I could even saturate a 10gbit as I have a 2GB/s M.2 SSD, although I don't *need* that.

 

My usage scenario is quite simple, I want to put storage HDs outside of my main box, without compromising on transfer speeds. 10gbit would simplify connectivity and future-proofing, but in practice I think I'll have to resort to teaming multiple gigabit connections to keep costs down.

 

If I'm not mistaken, some high end AC access points claim higher than gigabit transfers on the air side, but then in practice I've never managed to get max speed out of any wifi.

[Scheer]

Even if you do saturate 1 or even 10gbe, I think you need to look at it from a standpoint of how OFTEN would you saturate the connect. Just because it is possible to do doesn't mean you'd really save any time by upgrading your connection.

 

The only time you see 100mbps+ on hard drives, and 500mbps+ on SSDs is during large file transfers, so if you solely use your network for dragging files from one network store to the next it could be useful, but something like a backup is tons of little files where the storage is by far your bottleneck.

 

I think it is crazy not to upgrade, but at my work we still have a lot of 10/100 switches in use because even with 200 users they don't max out the connection more than a few total minutes a day. The primary switch there is even still gigabit going to all the servers.

46 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm frustrated by the lack of affordable >gigabit non-teamed networking solutions. Affordable doesn't have to mean dirt cheap. My bite point would be say 100USD per card to do a point to point connection only, so no switch cost. Those mysterious used fiber cards in an old video don't seem to exist around here.

 

If I'm not mistaken, some high end AC access points claim higher than gigabit transfers on the air side, but then in practice I've never managed to get max speed out of any wifi.

Its taken a while, but we are JUST about there on the network cards: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LPRS36K/

eBay is plum full of the server pull 10gbe cards, Amazon here even has a few: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B014QCETU4/

 

Searching for "Intel X520" works pretty well: http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR6.TRC0.A0.H0.Xintel+x520.TRS0&_nkw=intel+x520&_sacat=0

 

Access point listed speeds are the throughput, both up and down at the same time, in a perfect scenario. Take a AC wireless router claiming 2600mbps and you will never see more than 1300mbps download. Then once you factor in humidity, dust particles in the air, and your wife's mood you get about 130mbps.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Scheer said:

Even if you do saturate 1 or even 10gbe, I think you need to look at it from a standpoint of how OFTEN would you saturate the connect. Just because it is possible to do doesn't mean you'd really save any time by upgrading your connection.

 

Access point listed speeds are the throughput, both up and down at the same time, in a perfect scenario. Take a AC wireless router claiming 2600mbps and you will never see more than 1300mbps download. Then once you factor in humidity, dust particles in the air, and your wife's mood you get about 130mbps.

Exactly, and really unless you are transferring huge amounts of data, in the hundreds of GB, a 1Gb connection is not that slow. People need to adjust their expectations and learn a little patience, this does not mean we should not push for newer and faster technology. A 5 minute file copy doesn't need to be 30 seconds, sure it would be nice but come on really you can't wait 5 minutes or find something else to do in that time.

 

Also haha spot on explanation of true wireless performance.

[porina]

5 hours ago, Scheer said:

Even if you do saturate 1 or even 10gbe, I think you need to look at it from a standpoint of how OFTEN would you saturate the connect. Just because it is possible to do doesn't mean you'd really save any time by upgrading your connection.

 

The only time you see 100mbps+ on hard drives, and 500mbps+ on SSDs is during large file transfers, so if you solely use your network for dragging files from one network store to the next it could be useful, but something like a backup is tons of little files where the storage is by far your bottleneck.

I take a slightly different view there. The same way we buy fast CPUs, fast ram, fast GPU... Even if you don't use it to its limits all the time, there will be times you will do. Currently I work around it by using a large SSD as a temporary workspace (can't afford to keep it there forever), then shift it to slow disks elsewhere for long term storage and backup. Management of this isn't fun. I'm kinda planning a dedicated primary storage server (already have a backup server) but this depends on having adequate networking in place.

 

We have to consider the value having a faster something will bring, and if it is worth it. If the price is too high for me, there are other things I could use more and get first. If it gets low enough, why not do it?

 

Thanks for the links. That does bring it down further than I had seen before, and I'll have to work out if the UK price is low enough for go for. 

[Hydro]

On 3/31/2016 at 7:07 PM, Electronics Wizardy said:

There are lan connections that are 100gbps. Its datacenter only though.

those are created by multiple cables like 10x 10gb cables