Linux 6.2 Begins Making Preparations For 800 Gbps Networking

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 6.2 Begins Making Preparations For 800 Gbps Networking

The Linux kernel's networking subsystem is beginning to make preparations for 800 Gbps Ethernet networking...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.2-800-Gbps-Networking

[anolting]

Scandinavian researcher have set a new world record by transmitting (citing) "1.84 Pbit s–1 over a 37-core, 7.9-km-long fibre using 223 wavelength channels derived from a single microcomb ring resonator" - see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01082-z
Publication at Chalmers: https://www.chalmers.se/en/departmen...d-record-.aspx

IMHO if Google thinks about establish Lazy RCU to save the last milliwatt on a CPU idleling the network components manufacturers, hard and software developers may also rethink the way we do networking in LANs and WANs in future and should focus on to become an all optical network not only for LAN and WAN.
Also main or serverboards could receive a new design in case of connecting to the network. It is possible that the work Intel has already done in this area will finally bear fruit.

[NobodyXu]

Scandinavian researcher have set a new world record by transmitting (citing) "1.84 Pbit s–1 over a 37-core, 7.9-km-long fibre using 223 wavelength channels derived from a single microcomb ring resonator" - see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-01082-z

That new world record is for data center.
It is unlikely for a single computer to process that much data anyway, it doesn't make sense for your laptop/desktop machine at home to use a 1.84PB fiber.

And what makes you think people would actually need that?
Even 5G is a bit too much since 4G is enough, not to mention 5G is harder and more expensive to deploy due to its fragile signal and more expensive, most people just use their mobile to watch youtube or browsing, do they really need 4G?

IMHO if Google thinks about establish Lazy RCU to save the last milliwatt on a CPU idleling the network components manufacturers, hard and software developers may also rethink the way we do networking in LANs and WANs in future and should focus on to become an all optical network not only for LAN and WAN.

Lazy RCU is very useful for laptop/desktop machine since most of the time your machine is not doing a lot of work.
Many cores in the CPU is probably idle with a few active, handling the browser, some network operations, etc.

[PCJohn]

I am wondering how 100GBps is even possible :-) . Considering the speed of light, one bit is 3 millimeters long when travelling through the cable. Somebody told me that length of photon from the Sun is about one meter long (?). Just astonished what humans can do...

[NobodyXu]

I am wondering how 100GBps is even possible :-) . Considering the speed of light, one bit is 3 millimeters long when travelling through the cable. Somebody told me that length of photon from the Sun is about one meter long (?). Just astonished what humans can do...

I remember that they encode the information in the frequency of the light and other properties, in additional to adding more fibers.

100GBps is number of bits transferred per second, it's not the latency.
The latency of fiber is still subject to the speed of light.

[timofonic]

That new world record is for data center.
It is unlikely for a single computer to process that much data anyway, it doesn't make sense for your laptop/desktop machine at home to use a 1.84PB fiber.

And what makes you think people would actually need that?
Even 5G is a bit too much since 4G is enough, not to mention 5G is harder and more expensive to deploy due to its fragile signal and more expensive, most people just use their mobile to watch youtube or browsing, do they really need 4G?



Lazy RCU is very useful for laptop/desktop machine since most of the time your machine is not doing a lot of work.
Many cores in the CPU is probably idle with a few active, handling the browser, some network operations, etc.

Bullshit! Sorry, but bullshit. Please stop thinking in such conservative and short sighted way, that's what stagnates the tech industry. 640kb ought to be enough for anybody.

Bandwidth _NEVER_ is enough. The more available, more possibilities. Faster internal buses, faster USB, faster ethernet, faster WI-FI and faster Internet.

The same about memory, processing power, latency, etc.

Nothing is enough, every advantage gives more possibilities.

[PCJohn]

I remember that they encode the information in the frequency of the light and other properties, in additional to adding more fibers.

100GBps is number of bits transferred per second, it's not the latency.
The latency of fiber is still subject to the speed of light.

Hm, it seems that both of us know about the same on the topic. Let's wait on others, maybe somebody will give us some insight on light, quantums, and more light wavelengths in single fiber. Let's not open question of latency or more fibers.

[NobodyXu]

Bullshit! Sorry, but bullshit. Please stop thinking in such conservative and short sighted way, that's what stagnates the tech industry. 640kb ought to be enough for anybody.

Bandwidth _NEVER_ is enough. The more available, more possibilities. Faster internal buses, faster USB, faster ethernet, faster WI-FI and faster Internet.

The same about memory, processing power, latency, etc.

Nothing is enough, every advantage gives more possibilities.

Yeah sure, new tech unlocks new usage we never considered before, but honestly how many people actually need or want a PB level network?

GB level network is already fast enough for most of us.
It's so fast that most of us will feel networking is no longer a bottleneck since they can download large 3A games in seconds or minutes.

The best games in the world is GB level, not PB level, having GB level network speed is enough.

Most people don't have storage large enough for 1 PB, instead they may have 1TB or 2TB storage.

Even GB level network will fill their disk in seconds.

And let's be honest, most people don't even download large games or large programs that often.

Most of the time you just use browser, download some pdfs and etc.

Even a programmer like me who uses nightly channel for latest rustc don't need GB network.

A 10MB/s network will satisfy most of my needs.
Why would I pay much more just for some minor improvements?

Let's be honest, people has limited budget and often it is wiser to use them on other area instead of throwing money to have the fastest or latest tech, that's just a waste of money.

We are not fucking google or amazon or the bare bone internet services that has the requirements because of their scale, nor do we have the money.

[kneekoo]

And what makes you think people would actually need that?
Even 5G is a bit too much since 4G is enough, not to mention 5G is harder and more expensive to deploy due to its fragile signal and more expensive, most people just use their mobile to watch youtube or browsing, do they really need 4G?

Too much? ) Of course it is, if you only consider streaming video content or browsing the web. But that's not all people do, and it's not just the average consumer that would need faster networking connections, but also those of us who work in IT.

The newer generations of NVMe storage devices are already faster than 10 GB/s. With bigger capacities, you can easily imagine how people would really need something even faster than 5G for backup and restore operations. Can you imagine a tablet retrieving a cloud backup for a whole day? Not great, especially if you also need it fast. But of course not all restores are about mobile devices.

It gets a lot worse when you have your own NAS and you backup/restore drives that are many TB in size. USB is barely a choice, but there's work on that front too. Everything needs to keep up with larger capacity storage devices. If we can't get/put our data off/on them fast enough, it's pretty bad. Can you imagine having to do backup/restore operations on more than one device at the same time through the same network? Because when people call you to rescue their devices, they might as well ask you to take care of the other things requiring a data restoration "while we wait for the other one to complete". You really don't want the network to be your bottleneck.

[NobodyXu]

Too much? ) Of course it is, if you only consider streaming video content or browsing the web. But that's not all people do, and it's not just the average consumer that would need faster networking connections, but also those of us who work in IT.

TBF, I am also going to work in the IT section as software engineer, so it's not like I don't need faster networking connections.

The newer generations of NVMe storage devices are already faster than 10 GB/s. With bigger capacities, you can easily imagine how people would really need something even faster than 5G for backup and restore operations. Can you imagine a tablet retrieving a cloud backup for a whole day? Not great, especially if you also need it fast. But of course not all restores are about mobile devices.

Yes, faster network connection is great, but just note that it is rare for people to restore from backup using 4G/5G.
Most of the time you would use wifi and you don't do that frequently.

And the cost is important too, nobody has unlimited budget.
With that considered, most of the time 1Gbps would be more than enough.
I personally uses 10Mbps 4G now unfortunately and I wish I have access to 100Mbps, which will make downloading much faster.

It gets a lot worse when you have your own NAS and you backup/restore drives that are many TB in size. USB is barely a choice, but there's work on that front too. Everything needs to keep up with larger capacity storage devices. If we can't get/put our data off/on them fast enough, it's pretty bad. Can you imagine having to do backup/restore operations on more than one device at the same time through the same network? Because when people call you to rescue their devices, they might as well ask you to take care of the other things requiring a data restoration "while we wait for the other one to complete". You really don't want the network to be your bottleneck.

If you are using NAS on your local network, then you just need to buy a 10G network switches, it's a one-off investment.

I am mainly talking about the 1.8PB connection to the WAN which timofonic is using as an example to say that Lazy RCU is useless.
Not to mention that you would never run at that fast on a 4G/5G/wifi or whatever *G mobile devices.

Who in the right mind would buy that?
Even in 5-8 years time, I bet 1.8PB internet connection to WAN would still be quite expensive and most people still won't need them.