Intel's high-density computing honcho says that 10 Gigabit Ethernet (10GbE) is ready for prime time. "Datacenters are transitioning to 10GbE technology to meet the explosive data requirements of today's networks," Jason Waxman, Intel's General Manager of High-Density Computing, recently told The Reg. According to Waxman, the …
2009, the year of ...?
I thought 2009 was the year of linux on the desktop. Or will that be 2010, or 2011
the funny thing is...
that it's not usually the network that's slowing things down these days, it's quite often the OS or the server hardware itself. Of course, there are exceptions, especially in the high-end market where the hardware is much more capable, but most company server-farms that I've worked with have had trouble sustaining 50MB/s on file transfers across GbE networks (even when the network utilisation was under 5%.)
I thought it was the year of the Ox?
Can you pass me the one with the spring rolls in the pocket, ta
Right, and pigs fly! with sufficient explosive propellant, but that's irrelevant.
But will it stop people wasting money on FCAL based storage?
Lack of single standard delays adoption
Its the same story as with Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. Those who will invest first may loose. Now its the same between RJ45 and SFP+.
Personally I am not sure shall I do the optic or copper for the new rack installations. 10GBASE-T power savings may be achieved - or - may not be achieved, who knows if, and, when. Why twisted pair cable is so desirable? Who really wants to change all the existing cabling to 6E? Existing Cat5e cables won't work, 6e installations even today are very rare, most cables sold are 5e for 1Gbps, or CAT6 and that is not good enough for 10G.
If new cables are needed anyway, do you prefer new optic or new copper cabling? Optic cable is already cheapier than CAT6e cable, and looks more future proof. So why not optic, in the future it will allow 100G (1G some time ago looked as fantastic as 100G looks today).
What works and looks good today is the SFP+ standard, with already available LRM optical transmitters for "datacenter" multimode cable (up to 220 meters), or LR for "telecom" single mode cable (up to 10km).
Maybe the solution is for the servers to provide standard SFP+ sockets on motherboard, with "factory default" plugged-in 1Gbps SFP+ with RJ45 connector for 10/100/1000 connections. Those who need 10Gbps can buy 10G SFP+, either for copper direct connect up to 7 meters for in-rack connection or optic SFP+ if longer distance (out of rack) is needed.
4W per 10GBASE-T port is too much. Also there is no switches with 10G RJ45, and also there is no CAT6e cables in the data centers. For top-of-rack switches SFP+ are needed, not RJ45. If they build a 10G chip that works over RJ45 and transmits only the minimum power needed to work over specific distance, then power usage would be small to the top of rack switches, due to the short distance, and more power needed only if line is connected to the far away switching cabinet directly (up to 100 meters). That may be acceptable, but its not yet developed.
It looks strange when switches go for SFP+, and network adapter vendors talk about the plans to develop RJ45 solutions.
ONE standard is needed, and until that is not happening, I am not going to invest.
The standard choices are either SFP+, that looks good and works now, but is still expensive, or RJ45 with low power, and that is not yet developed. Unless SFP+ sockets on motherboards will start to appear, and SFP+ optic prices will drop considerably in the nearest 3 months, nothing on mass scale will happen in 2009. The sharp and fast price drop for SFP+ modules (at least for 10/100/1000 RJ45 module), and SFP+ sockets in server motherboards seems unlikely today. To accelerate 10G adoption today, server industry needs to eliminate RJ45 and go for SFP+ , or we will continue to wait not clear how long, until power savings will be achieved for 10G over RJ45, if ever.
So, 2009 will NOT be a year of mass 10G adoption. Maybe 2011.
I would like to see most routers supporting 1gibit. It seems that unless you know what you are doing you are likely to end up buying a router with only 100mbit ports. They should have stopped selling a couple of years ago.
Fast(100Mb) ethernet is all most routers need - you really think that manufacturers are going to spring for more expensive tech when home internet speeds are still a pittance compared to the size of the current ethernet pipe? Most datacenters could probably get away with fast ethernet as well; if the router's WAN port is gigabit, even more can get away with LAN fast ethernet. Don't be surprised that the lower end hasn't moved - it won't until it has to(which is why IPv6 won't become popular for a LONG(technologically speaking) time).