REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
rick merritt   10/18/2012 6:39:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Does Andy have it right? wrong? What do you think?

elPresidente
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
elPresidente   10/19/2012 8:40:11 PM
NO RATINGS
That "100,000 chips or it ain't worth it" has been the mantra for decades - nothing new. 100Gb/s FPGAs have been around for a couple of years now. Again, nothing new. No mention of 160Gb/s, or 400Gb/s, which are upcoming. Sounds to me like he's trying to solve procurement channel problems in his investment portfolio, vs being a visionary driver of industry.

krh
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
krh   10/20/2012 4:33:41 AM
NO RATINGS
$$ per bit...Andy has it right for the next 5 years...

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
rick merritt   10/22/2012 8:39:30 PM
NO RATINGS
Two great and opposing views here. I'd love to hear some more thoughtful opinions on whether Andy has the future of networking right and why or why not.

Philip Papadopoulos
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
Philip Papadopoulos   10/26/2012 9:36:33 PM
NO RATINGS
1) Andy's talking about the server space. I think he's bang on. The adoption curves look to be very similar to past networking tech uptakes. 2) He's not talking about the desktop space and/or wireless space. GigE is now pressed down on el-cheapo DIY motherboards, but you don't really need greater than 1GbE in your house for the next 1/2 decade) Hence, you cannot necessarily make the same volume argument for bringing down the price of 10GbE at the same rate. That means that the absolute price of 10G won't drop as quickly as it did for 1G, but it will get there. Of that, I have no doubt. Afterall, as people rely on network (buzzword cloud) services, the number of servers continues to rise. And Ideally you keep constant BW/core as you deploy big systems. As core count rises, so do your network bandwidth needs.

Philip Papadopoulos
User Rank
Author
re: Bechtolsheim brainstorms on next networking wave
Philip Papadopoulos   10/26/2012 9:43:05 PM
NO RATINGS
There is a fundamental utility limit of the network entering/exiting a server -- that's memory bandwidth. 400Gb/s is 50GB/sec, which is on par with achievable total memory bandwidth of common servers. When your network becomes faster than memory speed, you have to wonder about practical utility of that extra unusable capacity. I would argue that the practical limit is closer to single memory channel speed, not aggregate system memory bandwidth. Today, a 2100MHz DDR3 Channel is 17GB/sec ~ 136Gbps.



Most Recent Comments
Like Us on Facebook
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Martin Rowe

Test Tool Finds Ethernet Wiring Errors
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
When my house was renovated several years ago, I had the electrician install network outlets in numerous places, then run the LAN cables to a wiring closet. But he didn't document the ends ...

Martin Rowe

Local Electronics Store Supplies Engineers and Hobbyists
Martin Rowe
5 comments
Rochester, N.Y. — Tucked away in this western New York city known for its optics is Goldcrest Electronics, a local store that's supplied businesses and individuals with electronic ...

Martin Rowe

How to Transform a Technology University (Book Review)
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
The Presiding Genius of the Place by Alison Chisolm. WPI, Worcester, Mass., 234 pp., 2016. Engineers love to discuss, and often criticize, engineering education. They often claim ...

Max Maxfield

Aloha from EEWeb
Max Maxfield
Post a comment
Just a few minutes ago as I pen these words, I posted this blog about this month's Cartoon Punchline Competition over on EEWeb.com.