As single-line Ethernet speeds mature to the 10+ Gigabit range, fiber optic pathways between remote machines allow connection possibilities which could not easily exist before. These are not just in the area of performance and data locality, but rather now include the possibility of virtualizing existing interconnects over large distances. 10Gbit Ethernet allows approximately 1.25 GB to be transmitted per channel per second. Today's PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) buses run significantly slower than that maximum rate, and would essentially allow (through supporting hardware) the ability to have a peripheral component box located tens of kilometers away from the site that's actually using them. They could be isolated and share a distributed network. Since most PCI traffic never approaches the maximums, single shared 10Gbit connections could support multiple machines. The possibilities of moving away from the conceptual “computer box” are becoming more and more of a reality. And consider the following: these interconnects could be employed on the motherboard to directly connect components. Plug-in devices could be added as easily as installing a device to the shared 10Gb bus, then installing a “packet driver” to make it work. We already have many external connectivity protocols on that road, including FireWire, USB, Bluetooth, and other wireless solutions. Ethernet is a well-established system with Ethernet-on-a-chip solutions being readily available for a few dollars. The possibility of truly high-speed interconnects on a shared-bus architecture is something I see driving the industry in the years to come. If 10Gb isn't enough, then run two in parallel. If 20Gb isn't enough, then run four. The ability to expand and branch out is limited only by the designer's imagination. Read more at EE Times.
USER COMMENTS 15 comment(s)
| (9:36am EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
another reason to move to linux - by Ferris F. Fremont
|wrong (10:09am EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
Another reason to use a Mac.
Wintel Crap leverages the PCI bus far too frequently.
Macs have wonderful I/O bridges – and with PowerPC 970's w/ 900Mhz FSB's, they'll blow the Wintel/AMD poosticks away.
|Interesting concept…. (10:21am EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
…not a bad thing. However let's not make this a MAC vs Linux vs Windows vs M4NGO. (my tounge is fully in my cheek here for the trolls).
Then again what happens when PCI-Express becomes a common bus interface? Granted its expensive now, but when has that stopped industry from forcing a new standard on the consumer?
At this point, there is no reason for the average consumer to sweat 10GB Ethernet. A) they have no need for it B) they can't afford the connection that would take advantage of it.
As to the devices connecting through an ethernet based shared bus…I don't see it happening. - by Conlusio
|Conlusio…. (12:00pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
Wouldn't 10GB ethernet could really reduce corporate congestion. Just wondering. - by S&M
|more powerful popups (1:08pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
all that extra bandwidth will immediately get consumed by massive sm (streaming media) pop-ups, sm spam, sm adds running in chat progs, sm chat progs themselves, sm everything!
i'll probably get x10 burned into my retina from all the sm. - by suX10
|yes yes (1:49pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
Let's live in the rosy-posy future when PCI-Xpress is a common item…
Insted of the now, when Macs bypass the ass-sucking PCI bus for their 1000BaseT and Firewire 800 I/O…
Surely there is an equivalent Firewire 400/FibreChannel/GigEthernet motherboard available for Xeons if not Consumer-end chips, no? If I want x86 am I forced to rely on the PCI bus for I/O?
|mactroll (2:18pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
i'm pretty sure that someone out there makes one, but i bet it is a LOT more expensive than even the high end G4 PowerMac of today…
Not dissing the PC…just saying this is one of the places where mac architecture is ahead of the average windows machine. - by 505
|the switch (4:36pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
I think that hardware manufacturers should start thinking about lessening the amount of interconnect types and hardware protocols. One switch fabric on the mobo and many connections, (2 or 3 types only) that configure themselves to the type of hardware, be it HD, memory, CPU, slow media, networking.
I guess that would only happen if they start breaking up the mobo and that could only make business sense when there will only be one bridge instead of 2.
This would give more possibilities of being able to play a dvd or watch tv without having to boot up the computer or event letting power go to the cpu and memory because of a central switch and simpler standards. Imagine the OS having only one driver for moving data :-).
Any mobo manufacturers have the guts for that? - by FanTooLoud
|Cheap packet processors (6:56pm EST Fri Apr 18 2003)
It would take a concerted effort to integrate 10Gb into a motherboard, but I really – really like the possibilities. Intel has some good info on their IXP that helped me with the basic concepts.
Hey, IBM is finally admitting to the SiLK issues that TMSC had also. CV is the way to go. Too bad DOW. 90nm has sure cost some time and money. Like George Castanza might say, “it's shrinkage!”. LOL - by diddly
|Way2Go (6:56am EST Sat Apr 19 2003)
Finally a solution for the problems that really matter: How to get more porn faster on our desktops! - by RummyCo
|Crack (and Latency) Kills (7:21am EST Sat Apr 19 2003)
This will not provide “the possibility of virtualizing existing interconnects over large distances”
Latency kills that idea stone dead.
It's bad enough when the CPU sits idle for hundreds of clock cycles waiting for PCI data. It gets worse when it waits millions of clock cycles, especially when this wait will be transparent to the OS, because it's happening in hardware.
Remember the bad old days when poorly written network code would seize the entire system waiting for some distant end server that never responded?
What exactly is the effect of a dropped Ethernet frame on system that has been tricked into thinking that the data it asked for was on the local machine?
Sorry to beat you up about this, Rick. Just look at the challenges facing supercomputing. Most supercomputers are lucky to achieve 2 or 3 percent efficiency because of latency issues. This is OK when you have 10,000 cpus to work with and get to use the full power of 200 to 300 cpus all on the same task.
If you only get 2 to 3 percent efficiency from your single CPU desktop because the resources the CPU thinks are local are in fact, remote, you just turned you 5 Ghz Prescott effectively into a 100 mhz horse drawn 1/4 mile dragster.
What this does do is give the big and hurting network gear providers a new flagship to flog.
It is interesting to note that Gig-E switches have dropped to under $50 a port, full duplex, while 10/100 has dropped to under $5 a port.
This is the real news for most of us, the Reaganomics of new technology. The once insanely fast tech trickles down to become commodity hardware every time the next big thing gets pushed down corporate throats.
- by Perdo
|The Evil Spock (10:39pm EST Sat Apr 19 2003)
It seems my alternate universe existence is a bit more optimistic regarding latency and related efficiency.
Store and forward latency is greatly improved by new protocols that don't add excessively to the bandwidth. Improved scheduling techniques for low latency 10Gbps have already been demonstrated, and IP SAN networks at 10Gbps are inevitable.
The technical hurdles have been cleared, now it depends on getting the cost to a point where it will be irresistible. It is just a matter of time and the desktop will benifit from the R&D stemming from the NEEDS of some corporations to expand their technology. - by Zeke
|faster networks… ooo baby!! (5:02pm EST Sun Apr 20 2003)
Just my take on things, the biggest challenge is efficiently connecting CPUs to memory and improving network speed. Over the next 10 years as we approach the limits of silicon, improving the interconnect technologies will play a bigger and bigger role in actually seeing gains from faster processors. 10G is COOL! - by Greg D
|Zeke (8:01am EST Mon Apr 21 2003)
Exactly where I was heading with my blurb above. It is now a matter of time until useful uses of this technology are brought into existence.
- by Rick C. Hodgin
|10Gbit (9:22pm EST Mon Apr 21 2003)
Policy based routing and committed access rate have long been part of the ATM service providers tools. Prioritization of ATM gateways has been used for over 20 years. This is another big iron feature moving down to the consumer level. Sun Solaris servers equipped with fibre channel HBAs can IP SAN. WAN has long supported SAN.
The $1M question is: What is the application? Cable TV? Each level must function at 1Gb or what's the point? - by techj