the cable lengths quoted are pretty peculiar - no in-rack cable needs to be 5M - 1.5-2.5 would be preferred to minimize the excess. and 30M to an upper-level switch is also a bit extreme, since it's easy to arrange ~50 racks within a 10-12M diameter (even for a spread-out air-cooled cluster). I wonder whether they said meters but were thinking feet...
that anecdote from the patch-panel maker is pretty sad. they seem to be thinking of traditional IT, not clusters. a cluster will not normally use any patch panels: nodes connect directly to the leaf/TOR switch, and they connect directly to spine switches. it would be sad if archaic cable-length concerns quashed this effort.
I wonder how much the PHY is keeping switches from getting reasonable-priced. 10G won't really take off until its per-port switch+cable+nic price is very close to 1G (let's say, around $100.)
Great article Rick. One point that was not captured is that it takes 75% to pass a technical motion in the IEEE Study Groups. While there was support among a broad range of participants, a popular proposal can lose with a 74% approval.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.