backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by mixpix.. on Apr 12 at 2:21 AM


Cern's grid network connects computers and research stations and unheard of speeds, by implementing a brand new high-tech network with no legacy components.  (Source: University of Victoria)
Internet up to 10,000 times faster deployed, may see consumer use within a year or two

CERN, the Geneva-based particle physics center which spawned the world wide web in 1989, is looking to create the next internet, and has already laid down the essential ground work for it.  Experts say it is sorely needed.  Recent industry analysis, such as DailyTech's recent piece "American Broadband: Pathetic and Disgraceful," has revealed that most customer languish under poor data rates and high costs.

The new internet from CERN could change all that.  The proposed system averages speeds of up to 10,000 times the typical broadband connection today.  The new internet is known as "the grid" and could send the entire Rolling Stones catalog from Britain to Japan in two seconds, a scenario akin to the RIAA's worst nightmare

Among the fields the new internet may revolutionize are online gaming, holographic image transmission, and HD video telephony.  Under the new internet you would be able to complete a high definition video telephony call for the price of a normal call on a land line.

David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University says that the grid will surpass many peoples current conceptions of the internet.  He states, "With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine."

After years of work the grid is coming online this summer on what is termed the "red button day".  The new network will help to transmit the massive data load from CERN's new Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The LHC designed to probe some of the most complex mysteries of the physics world is a prime example of research application, which would be impossible without the grid.  The LHC creates an amount of data equivalent to the content of 56 million CDs annually -- or a little more than 36 petabytes per year.  If the data demands were steady this would equate to almost two CDs per second, but unsteady demand leads to a need for the ability to transmit dozens or more CDs worth of data in a second.

The demands of the LHC meant that the CERN scientists could not use the traditional internet, created by CERN researcher Sir Tim Berners-Lee, for fear of a worldwide collapse.  The current internet, a hodge-podge of high speed equipment and older equipment originally designed to work with telephone calls, simply is not robust enough to handle the capacity needed for the LHC or other potential future internet applications.

The grid, on the other hand, has been built from the ground up to a high tech standard.  It utilizes almost entirely fiber optics and has numerous cutting-edge routing centers.  The new network will not be slowed by outdated components.  The new grid already has 55,000 servers, and this is expected to rise to 200,000 within two years.

Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project explains the need for it, stating, "We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at CERN. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries."

The new "parallel internet" runs along fiber optic lines from CERN to 11 research locations in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.  Each of these 11 locations radiates out to other academic locations, using existing academic high-speed networks.  In Britain, 8,000 servers are current online and it is projected that by the fall a student at any university could connect to the grid rather than the traditional internet.

Ian Bird, project leader for CERN's high-speed computing project, believes that the grid will make desktop data storage obsolete.  With the incredible speeds and data rates, it is only a matter of time, he says, before people entrust all their information to the internet.  Says Bird, "It will lead to what’s known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere."

By using its blazing speed, the grid can leverage the power of thousands of connected computers, when challenged with a particularly tough task.  Researchers hope the new power will allow the LHC to detect a Higgs boson, an elusive never-before seen theoretical particle, which is supposed to be what gives matter mass.  The LHC will only be able to detect a few thousand particles a year and will need to leverage the grid's full power to analyze these particles in coming years.

It is uncertain whether the grid will branch into a domestic network, or whether business will elect to build their own similar networks.  Some telecom providers and businesses are beginning to implement one of the grid's most powerful features, so-called dynamic switching.  Dynamic switching gives the user a dedicated channel during a particularly big task.  This can allow a movie to be downloaded in 5 seconds instead of 3 hours.

For now students and other researchers such as astronomers and molecular biologists will be able to use the grid, though.  Using the grid's power scientists analyzed 140 million  possible malaria fighting compounds to develop more effect drugs.  This analysis would have taken a traditional internet PC hundreds of years.

Doyle believes strongly that the grid's technology is coming soon to businesses and the consumer.  He says, "Projects like the grid will bring huge changes in business and society as well as science.  Holographic video conferencing is not that far away. Online gaming could evolve to include many thousands of people, and social networking could become the main way we communicate.  The history of the internet shows you cannot predict its real impacts but we know they will be huge."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Once again...
By BigToque on 4/7/2008 1:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
Once again, the hard drive will be the weakest link in the chain...

Where are the fiber optic hard drives? :p




RE: Once again...
By bespoke on 4/7/2008 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 5
The weakest link for Americans is our greedy broadband monopolies who have no incentive to upgrade their infrastructure. This new "internet" might be 100x faster, but won't mean jack since most of us will be stuck at ~5mbps...


RE: Once again...
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 5
Selling points :). Whoever offers 5Gb/s connections speed first will instantly dominate till the rest catch up.


RE: Once again...
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2008 1:39:21 PM , Rating: 4
Only in areas they exist. Even if Comcast were to offer 1Gbps connections today, if you live in an area that has Time Warner, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do other than move. That was his point. The companies have a monopoly at a single address. The consumer doesn't get to decide whether they want Time Warner or Comcast cable. They get to decide whether they want satellite or cable. Only in the satellite market is there actually competition since both Dish and DirectTV can beam a signal down to you.


RE: Once again...
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 1:48:21 PM , Rating: 4
Then it may be a good time to think about making a "Grid" access start up company ;).

I know that was his point, and he and you are totally right. But, hopefully if this catches on, since it needs a new backbone instead of the current telephony dominated one, new companies will pop up or current ones will expand to cause competition. We'll have to see, depends on laws too.


RE: Once again...
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2008 2:17:40 PM , Rating: 3
Thats the problem. The laws are written so the cable and phone companies maintain their monopolies. You can start up a company that offers to install grid-like hardware and lines in your neighborhood. But you'll never be able to do it since either the phone or cable companies will stop you. Hence why FiOS has such a small install base. Comcast, Time Warner, Bellsouth, and Sprint are trying to keep them out of areas claiming their a cable or phone company.


RE: Once again...
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 2:23:28 PM , Rating: 4
So sadly true, which is an incompatible way of doing things with the new Information Age's needs. Laws definitely need to get changed, and who knows how long that'll take. It's disheartening and frustrating, but how ironic would it be if the USA was the last developed country on Earth to get this system due to our antiquated telephone companies?


RE: Once again...
By Oregonian2 on 4/7/2008 2:08:55 PM , Rating: 4
Quite true. Those greedy scumbags want to make a profit rather than donate their trillions of borrowing ability to the greater good of the country and to porn downloading frenzies.

P.S. - Do the guys at CERN get a bill for under 40 USD a month for their GRID system use (and that be the largest bill they ever got for anything GRID related)?

P.P.S. - Do some googling and see just how much Verizon is spending to build out their FiOS system (it's come by our house). I did a year or two ago and found that they're spending an insane amount of money and nearly all of their capex is for it. One can buy 30-Mbps download from it if one is willing to pay (nasty word I know) for it. 15/15 is about $65/mo. One gets more bandwidth to the home in the form of TV video services off that same connection (although it again, requires payment). The telecom companies would be glad to provide terabyte services to everyone if they could be convinced that everyone would pay for it, giving them a reasonable net profit. But even then, like FiOS, the capital expense to deploy such a system divided by the amount of money available per year would yield a good while before it could be built out. Heck, it can take forever sometimes just to get local government approvals and just figure out the fees (locally the city charges different fees for allowing street digging based upon which street and how long it's been since they last paved it -- imagine just the figuring out of that for the country, and that's just to get to the stage of nothing-done-yet). I think some of the cable companies are talking FiOS-like (or greater) speeds in future systems. Still has to be built-out and capex to do so is limited by funds available (and for those not making money the capex available is even lower).


RE: Once again...
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Quite true, hence why this'll take a while, a long while.

Still, the Grid has already been deployed to several universities around the globe and between 55,000 servers (a drop in the bucket compared to current number of internet servers) according to the article, so we'll see.


RE: Once again...
By mattclary on 4/7/2008 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 3
We gave them money for faster internet back in the 90s. Do some homework before attempting sarcasm.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...


RE: Once again...
By dever on 4/7/2008 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Proving once again that the free market trumps government interference.

What gives better incentive to for a company to perform?... A one time payment confiscated from the country's workers? OR... Voluntary continued payments by individuals based on performance of contract?


RE: Once again...
By Oregonian2 on 4/7/2008 8:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
I just read that article. It has some good points but most of it is promotional trash spoken in the writer's interest -- including taking things out of context. What it doesn't talk about is where the money comes from to finance that tremendous fiber infrastructure to the home. Did they spend a lot of capex for DSL to the home? Sure, for the same money they can provide for a huge number of DSL customers on existing copper as compared to having to install new fiber to the home for fewer people.

Saying that they plan to build wonderful things and then not do it is, like, "what's new". Look at a lot of subjects in Dailytech, where they talk about some form of vapor-ware, just as those systems were. They all have plans until money intervenes, or lack thereof. Off the top of my head, excepting for Verizon and maybe one other, most all of the big telecoms have been doing very badly. Like in losing money. Our area has Verizon and Quest, where Quest is probably the worst. Surprised they haven't gone bankrupt (may still do that) -- not sure what happens to service when that happens (glad I'm in a Verizon area -- formerly GTE).

One of the big things missing is that there had been expectations of a certain amount of revenue flow. Especially from long distance voice service that had been the big money source in the olden days. Competition of VOIP, cell phones, and third party services has driven down the cost of long distance to make it almost no different from local service in terms of price to the customer (and on my cell phone they are in fact exactly equivalent). All that expected revenue that didn't come had been planned to be the source of money to build the new systems. The new systems can't finance themselves because of the catch-22 situation (particularly when there is a long period before a built system even breaks even). Plus they got burnt seriously upon the dot-com crash. I suspect that makes them a bit more reluctant to invest heavily on wild expectations of customers coming if they only build it.

As to speed of links. Those who are served by the newest FiOS links using G-PON technology (made by Alcatel-Lucent), customers actually receive data at a 2.4 Gbps rate and send data back at a 1.2Gbps rate (downlinks are addressed packets on a shared optical pipe, uplink is dynamically allocated timeslot based). You just aren't allowed to average higher than the offered services provided, but the raw speed is there and is delivered into the home (even if not allowed to be used w/o much lower limits).


RE: Once again...
By jeff834 on 4/7/2008 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
Prices for FiOS here (NJ) are quite reasonable. 20/5 for $50 a month by itself or $100 a month for the internet and HD TV. I pay Comcast about $130 a month for TV, internet, and phone, and I could very easily do without phone service to get a much faster internet (20/5 vs 7/1) and what Im sure will be better TV service since I have big problems with signal strength for the higher up channels as it is. FiOS is available where I live, but it's a pretty big town (just under 100k people) and its taking a while for them to get to me.


RE: Once again...
By Joz on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Once again...
By somedude1234 on 4/7/2008 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 5
I hope that's sarcasm!

Any halfway-decent 7.2k RPM SATA drive can stream anywhere from 60 to 80 MBps (mega-BYTES) for large-sequential transfer sizes (i.e. video streaming)... that's enough to saturate an internet connection providing an ACTUAL throughput of (very roughly) 600 to 800 Mbps (mega-BITS).

A typical DSL connection in the USA will give you 3.0 Mbps downstream, that comes out to (very roughly) 0.3 MBps =(

My craptacular comcast connection will briefly burst up to about 16 Mbps, which is (roughly again) 1.6 MBps. I can't remember the last time I had a HDD that slow.

The day my HDD becomes the bottleneck in a transmission going over the internet is the day I jump for joy.


RE: Once again...
By Funksultan on 4/7/2008 2:23:46 PM , Rating: 4
Amen somedude. Joz doesn't understand...

when he said..

quote:
well, maybe a RAID of a hundred or so 15000rpm SCSI's


Once people throw out ridiculous numbers, it usually means they don't have a clue about the actual facts, and how numbers relate to them.

Granted, this new tech will make a mockery of conventional storage, but I'll just hold off until it actually surfaces before worrying about keeping up.

Magnetic drives? Doubtful.
Some ultra-fast form of SSD? Very likely.


RE: Once again...
By namechamps on 4/10/2008 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
I would give you a +1 but you are already maxed.

Thanks for your support in the never ending battle to educate DT readers what 1 bit != 1 byte. Doesn't matter the topic at least once a day someone makes a post that needs to be corrected because 1 bit != 1 byte.


RE: Once again...
By AToZKillin on 4/11/2008 3:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
8 bits to a byte. But at least you had the right general idea. That being said though, you don't want to even remotely saturate hard disk bandwidth. For the same reasons that you don't want to saturate LAN bandwidth.


RE: Once again...
By kextyn on 4/7/2008 1:55:46 PM , Rating: 3
You should really learn how to convert bits and bytes. It would only take one or two fast drives to saturate a 1Gbps link. And since I know that Comcast is NOT giving you a 1Gbps link I'm fairly certain that 1 hard drive would saturate your connection.


RE: Once again...
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/11/2008 12:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, you've got it wrong:

1 bit = 1 byte = 1 meter = 1 celsius deg = 1 fahrenheit deg = 1 kelvin deg = 1 kilogram.

If that weren't true, instant teleporting devices ala star trek couldn't exist...

Oh, wait. We have no teleporting devices at all! Hell! What's wrong here?

Never mind.

I'd rather not download too many things or my hard drive will get so fat it'll end up creating a black hole right on top my desk, sucking away all my hardware parts into some crappy unknown dimension which only exists in a badly written sci-fi movie for children.

People: 2 much incompletely read information will give you problems converting simple, basic measurement units and some day you are gonna kill your grandma because you think she's just a big lost cluster that escaped from the HDD and must be wiped off for your machine to boot correctly.

PS: Just kidding!


RE: Once again...
By piroroadkill on 4/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Once again...
By tastyratz on 4/8/2008 8:47:46 AM , Rating: 5
racism, intelligent. perhaps you plan to trump his ignorance with your arrogance?


RE: Once again...
By freaqie on 4/7/2008 2:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
it may be so that the hard drive cannot keep up.
however your ram can.
so you save it in there. and you can stream hd anyway.. o need to save it...

only on the server side it could be a problem


RE: Once again...
By dflynchimp on 4/9/2008 4:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
screw fiber optics, I want a end-user "Cortana" to store all my data...and maybe some personal functions too ;)


RE: Once again...
By ShaolinSoccer on 4/10/2008 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of end-user, you mean all-users. PC's on both sides need to be able to read and write almost instantly in order for this "grid" to be used to its full potential.


HD video conferencing
By TomCorelis on 4/7/2008 12:58:58 PM , Rating: 5
HD Video conferencing... why? Who wants that? Do the foppish types really want to run to the mirror every time they make a videophone call?

TBH I don't care to see the person on the other end of the line. I don't want to see their messy room, or their dog walk by, and I don't want them to see that I'm reading a web page or playing solitaire while I'm talking to them. What's wrong with regular old voice?

As much as I look forward to all these wtfbbq-speed enhancements, what I don't look forward to are all the technologies that will be thrust on us consumers. HD Videoconferencing... high definition advertisements using unheard-of amounts of screen space and CPU power... and don't even get me started on cloud computing: anybody even remotely concerned with their privacy would be foolish to trust anything juicy to "the internet."




RE: HD video conferencing
By SiliconJon on 4/7/2008 1:08:30 PM , Rating: 5
Silly rabbit, the answer is "porn".


RE: HD video conferencing
By fic2 on 4/7/2008 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah - use something relevant. How long does it take to send the entire Jenna Jameson catalog from Britain to Japan?


RE: HD video conferencing
By TomCorelis on 4/7/2008 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 5
On the 'grid? Probably a couple of hours :-)


RE: HD video conferencing
By ImSpartacus on 4/7/2008 3:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is, that probably is true.


RE: HD video conferencing
By Cogman on 4/7/2008 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
while I completely agree with your sentiments on cloud computing, I do somewhat disagree with your hate of Video Conferencing.

For me, it would be a god send. I have a very hard time understanding people over the phone and really hate it in a lot of ways. To be able to see lip movement would mean the world for me in understanding. True, you get the awkward parts as well (playing solitaire when you should be working) but the benefit of understanding really outweighs that for me.


RE: HD video conferencing
By Nefiorim on 4/7/2008 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 5
Congratulations, after me being a lurker for a very long time you sir made me actually register.

Why does it always have to be about "what's in it for me". I hope you can see the benefit of, for example, being able to operate on a person on the other side of a world using HD instead of normal video transmission.

While something might not have any practical use for you as a person, it might still have a huge (positive) impact on society as a whole.


RE: HD video conferencing
By ImSpartacus on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: HD video conferencing
By StormEffect on 4/7/2008 7:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
If we ever DO get to telesurgery, would you want your surgeon operating on you looking through an old 640x480 computer screen or something with 1920x1080 resolution on a 30 inch monitor so he can actually SEE the blood vessels.

The 2up poster from here has a point, individual users might not imagine this does much for them, but this could have an effect paramount to the original internet. Cloud computing means faster research means more data means more freedom means empowered developing nations means equality.

The Grid has implications more important than streaming you blueray movies in a few seconds, it will allow the world to be come connected on a level surpassing that of the current internet.

And if you doubt people will go for it, look back and ask people 15 years ago if they thought people would be posting videos of themselves and their cat on YouTube for the entire world to see using the webcam in their 13.3 inch laptop over mobile broadband. Ok, so bad example...


RE: HD video conferencing
By AlmostExAMD on 4/8/2008 4:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually neither, I want my surgeon in the same room, Using his/her hands looking through their own eyes!
Last thing i want is a system reboot or blue screen of death or power blackout while having surgery from some doctor on the other side of the globe(sarcasm).
But in general I do see a clear positive aspect of this new Grid, Benefits would be tremendous!


RE: HD video conferencing
By snownpaint on 4/10/2008 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
then how about you being so far from a skilled surgeon you don't get any help at all. Fix my appendicitis, or die.. I would take my chances.


RE: HD video conferencing
By aeroxander on 4/9/2008 1:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'll second that stormeffect,

I'm sure the exact same thing was said about the internet in its heyday.


RE: HD video conferencing
By JonnyDough on 4/8/2008 4:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would never have an off-site surgeon performing on me with robots. Power goes out or something, and wham...you're screwed. No. I think I prefer to be in a hospital, where they have backup surgeons on call. Besides, I trust my own vision over that of a camera any day. It's called point of perception or something.


RE: HD video conferencing
By JonnyDough on 4/8/2008 4:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I didn't see AlmostXAMD's comment above me before I posted. That's what I get for not reading thoroughly I guess. I wanted to add that while I wouldn't put my life in the hands of an off-location surgeon, I would however fly in an airplane that has no windows. Boeing designed one which would have flown much faster and more efficiently than the Concorde, rivaling the XR-71 even...but they scrapped it when they did a survey and found that people were too afraid to fly in an aircraft they couldn't see out of, as if they had more control falling out of the sky in a plane they could see out of or something. I think a trip to the other side of the world in a few hours would be sweet. In fact, the airplane design was regarded as being safer too, and not just more environmentally friendly/economical. Just one more example of how we frail humans allow our fears to rule us.


RE: HD video conferencing
By snownpaint on 4/10/2008 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agree!!

Being able to send HD microscopic video around the world and teleconference at the same time, now that is nice and life saving. How about a specialist doing a diagnoses from the other side of the world. Or surgery. The list is endless with interactive HD communications..


RE: HD video conferencing
By Shlong on 4/7/2008 1:33:51 PM , Rating: 3
So what if your across the globe and you can see your wife/parents/kids via HD video conferencing? For the most part, I wouldn't use it but I can see some applications where it would be useful.


RE: HD video conferencing
By Strunf on 4/8/2008 7:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's not HD bu "Holographic video conferencing" and that's a whole different matter...


Cloud computing
By uhgotnegum on 4/7/2008 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 5
OOOOh, look at that one...it looks like an .mp3....OH, that one looks like a pirate ship.

And just out of curiosity, how many tech savvy people out here in Dailytechworld are really planning on entrusting their data to "the cloud" (or is it "their cloud?")? I've read privacy policies and user agreements before, and I try to avoid giving some random server (at CERN or wherever) control over may data.




RE: Cloud computing
By wushuktl on 4/7/2008 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
No one's forcing you to use 'the cloud' but if you want to use it for information that you want readily available on a somewhat secure server then why not? so yeah i probably wouldn't put my credit card numbers on there but maybe i'll put my recipes on there. nothing wrong with that.

<sarcasm>I HATE CHANGE</sarcasm>


RE: Cloud computing
By TomCorelis on 4/7/2008 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 5
My version of 'the cloud': a linux server sitting in my closet, with a public IP, Apache, and a self-signed SSL certificate.


RE: Cloud computing
By ViroMan on 4/8/2008 3:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
For gods sakes why can't I vote ppl up? btw +1.


RE: Cloud computing
By dflynchimp on 4/9/2008 5:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
because you already commented on the thread. you can't vote and comment on the same thread for sommat st00pid reason


RE: Cloud computing
By darkfoon on 4/7/2008 5:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Right on!
I don't understand why so many futurists have a nerdgasm at the possibility of "cloud computer". I for one could care less. I like my data right where it is: where somebody can't easily go snooping through it (unless they break into my house or trojan me).

Given the number of security breaches at the gov't and at corporations where Social Security numbers have been stolen and credit card numbers have been stolen, I don't trust my data to anyone other than myself.
At least if I make a mistake, I can blame myself. Instead of some incompetent 'cow orker' who has their database password taped to their monitor.


RE: Cloud computing
By Carter642 on 4/9/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
The point of cloud computing is not to have your data floating about but rather to have access to it from anywhere. Like Tom up above I simply have my own personal storage server on my shelf that I can access from anywhere with an internet connection and a USB port.


RE: Cloud computing
By snownpaint on 4/10/2008 1:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you have checked you bank statements online (SS#), or made a payment online, maybe even gave your credit card info online. You bank info is stored off your hard drive and set thru the pipes.. How would that be any differ being these people (CERN) developed the internet you are using today.. ( well I guess Gore did, and these are just Bigger Pipes to allow more water(data) through.. )


Impressive numbers
By Felix on 4/7/2008 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 5
...but I think the tech-savvy readers here at AT prefer more standardized units than 'miles of CDs per year' ;)




RE: Impressive numbers
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/7/2008 12:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that :) It's approximately 36 petabytes:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=56+m...


RE: Impressive numbers
By kileil on 4/7/2008 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 5
With that many Petabytes on the loose, it'd be wise to keep an eye on the kids...


RE: Impressive numbers
By Spookster on 4/7/2008 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 5
I prefer my units to be in: Al Gore Speeches/hour.


RE: Impressive numbers
By Eris23007 on 4/7/2008 5:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Kris - this post deserves a 6 for funny + original


One problem
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2008 12:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
Telecomm companies have to actually invest money to upgrade their systems for it. We can't even get them to upgrade their hardware enough to give us FiOS level connections. I doubt they'd spend the money to have fiber all over the US and servers adequate enough to support that level of traffic. At least at a price that the majority of us can afford.




RE: One problem
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 1:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's just like with the original internet: starts off with universities and the government, then spreads to the consumer little by little. It'll probably be years before it really impacts us, but then again, you never know.


RE: One problem
By borismkv on 4/7/2008 1:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. It only took the current form of the Internet 50 years to get from where it started to where it is now. So I guess we'll be using this around 2060 or so. I'll be dead by then, so I guess it doesn't really matter to me.


RE: One problem
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 1:17:38 PM , Rating: 4
Not necessarily THAT long. Now that the internet has a place in the world, rolling out a new one shouldn't take nearly as long as introducing an entirely unheard of technology that no one knows what to do with yet.


RE: One problem
By arazok on 4/7/2008 3:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
The internet, as a mass consumer item has only existed as a since 1995 (ish). In 13 years we have moved from dialup, to ISDN, to DSL/Cable, and recently FiOS. Yes, it will take years to upgrade our infrastructure to fiber and 'the grid', but it's underway. It took decades for the telephone to become ubiquitous, but from a historical perspective it's adoption was rapid. FiOS will roll out much faster then the original telephone.

And once FiOS is everywhere, somebody will invent flux capacitating fiber, and we'll all be agonizing at how slow the Telco's are at rolling it out.


RE: One problem
By JonnyDough on 4/8/2008 4:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they've been waiting for something even more worthwhile to sink money into. Why upgrade from 1-2 if you can go from 1-5 and wait another few years?


RE: One problem
By Carter642 on 4/9/2008 4:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
The telecomms haven't even finished paying off all the copper that they put in the ground that's already been torn out and replaced by fiber trunks. Don't count on any major infrastructure upgrades in the next decade.


Common you little whippersnapper's
By arazok on 4/7/2008 2:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Can somebody explain to me how this works in layman's terms?

The current internet is a series of tubes. The new internet is...




By johnsonx on 4/7/2008 2:25:10 PM , Rating: 4
more like chicken-wire


By TomCorelis on 4/7/2008 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
...a grid of pipes?


By BadAcid on 4/7/2008 5:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well with this talk of cloud computing it's looking more like the fabled "big truck" to dump something on.


By Farfignewton on 4/7/2008 8:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current internet is a series of tubes. The new internet is...


like a hamster habitat sized for elephants, and probably running negative pressure so data isn't slowed by wind resistance. It's the rebirth of vacuum tubes!


By root mean sq on 4/7/2008 10:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
it's like a grid, :P


OMG
By Oroka on 4/7/2008 1:29:22 PM , Rating: 4
For Sale: 1 internets, heavily used, last centuries model. Want to upgrade to new 'Grid' network, old interweb must go.

$20 o.b.o




RE: OMG
By amdsupport on 4/7/2008 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 4
Why don't you just pull out your receipt and return it to Al Gore for a full refund?


RE: OMG
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/7/2008 2:11:02 PM , Rating: 5
Al Gore would probably complain about the size of the carbon footprint the return would make.


20 years from now...
By wingless on 4/7/2008 12:57:17 PM , Rating: 5
20 years from now we'll think its piss slow compared to what Japan will have come out with a few years earlier in 2032. Our slow optical CPUs with and old 4x5000TB RAID-III optical SSD setup from 6 years earlier will still need more bandwidth to download those 600TB holographic interactive porn movies faster on Limewire. So one day we'll call this slow compared to the subspace internet in Japan and they'll still pwn us at holographic Counter Strike 4 with their .0032ns pings compared to our .0122ns. BOOM! HEADSHOT...LOL jk jk

Seriously though, this is amazing technology. I have a hard time imagining we could ever use that much bandwidth but I'm sure some noob said that about 2400baud in the '80s. With the advent of optical and quantum processors just around the corner, this 10,000x speedup may be the new 28.8kilobaud that pisses us off waiting 4 hours to download a free holo-porn clip (1 of 4 clips dammit!).




RE: 20 years from now...
By wingless on 4/7/2008 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 5
^Thats with Comcast throttling your download, btw....


I think the article is a little optomistic.
By shaunbed on 4/7/2008 1:41:16 PM , Rating: 3
It states: Under the new internet you would be able to complete a high definition video telephony call for the price of a normal call on a land line.

This should read: Under the new internet your phone company would be able to complete a high definition video telephony call for the price of a normal call on a land line.

I have a feeling that the consumer (in the U.S.) would not save much or see much higher data rates any time soon even with a discovery like this. I hope I am wrong.




RE: I think the article is a little optomistic.
By SuckRaven on 4/7/2008 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
"By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves."

ok...not weapons necessarily, but I could not resist throwing in this quote. Maybe they should just call it Skynet. Wouldn't that be funny???


By killerroach on 4/7/2008 2:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sssh... you're going to blow its cover!


whats the difference
By tastyratz on 4/7/2008 12:58:28 PM , Rating: 4
I read about this earlier today in another article as well.
As promising as it may sound and as much as its promoted - just what are we looking at? Everything is expressed in multiples but there are no true throughput numbers anywhere. ( they could consider 56k high speed for all we know)
Does anyone have any hard data? Is the way data transmission happens going to change?
Doesn't sound like it would be any different than a massive infrastructure change to the existing net to aid in congestion (aka evolutionary not revolutionary as they make it sound)
I think we would be in the same boat whether you start from scratch with high end equipment or add high end equipment to the existing net- companies just don't want to invest the capital in high end hardware here.




RE: whats the difference
By geddarkstorm on 4/7/2008 1:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
It does sound evolutionary instead of revolutionary, but remember, the very reason CERN is making this now over their original internet, which is what we use, is because the current one cannot handle the throughput CERN needs for the LHC--it would collapse the current net. So, no, 56k is not high speed to them in the least! We are talking about throughput here from the get go: for instance cloud computer, multiple parallel computers processing some task you started all at once, but it has to be fast enough to be just as good as if it was done on just one computer (with parallel specs of all the cloud computers combined, of course) latency and throughput wise.

This is all about using light instead of copper and telephony switching, so it sounds. Also, this "grid" will let us fix all the problems we've found with the current internet, like the limits of IPv4 which will make us run out of new IP addresses soon, and other routing and throughput problems they couldn't have envisioned when they made the original net. Sure this'll probably have its own problems many years down the line once it's progressed beyond current day imagination, but at least we can apply all we've learned from this net to making that one far more robust.

It'll probably be years before we see this, as just with the original internet, it's being rolled out for universities first: but you can bet companies will cash in on it to out compete each other. If Comcast suddenly said it could give you several Gigabits per second of speed and bandwidth, I'm pretty sure that would stomp the current competition.


yeah
By Ammohunt on 4/7/2008 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It will lead to what’s known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere."


....yeah and i'm a chinese jet pilot.

Spoken like someone that is completely clueless about human nature.




RE: yeah
By Choppedliver on 4/7/2008 4:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
This talk of 10,000 times faster because of no legacy components is relative. 20 years from year this thing will be slow and made of "legacy" components


RE: yeah
By Pottervilla on 4/9/2008 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're exactly right.

But twenty years from now, would you rather have what's today's latest and greatest, or equipment from 20 years ago?

I'm pretty young yet, so I haven't really seen the 'old' days of computers. But some days, dad talks about a 'big' file that's maybe 20 MB or so. I often work with files 5 GB and up, and I assume that tomorrow's big files will be around a couple hundred gig.

Still, getting rid of copper and other 'legacy' components sounds good to me. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fiber Optic cable is the fastest cable we have short of quantum cable (or whatever it's called)?

Jonathan


Plagiarism?
By nstott on 4/7/2008 7:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
I notice that a lot, although not all, of this article is verbatim from an article in The Times of London. I can't find an acknowledgment of Jason's source material. Is there one?




RE: Plagiarism?
By JustTom on 4/7/2008 9:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Original Times of London article...
quote:
By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.

Jason's blog...

quote:
The grid, on the other hand, has been built from the ground up to a high tech standard. It utilizes almost entirely fiber optics and has numerous cutting-edge routing centers. The new network will not be slowed by outdated components. The new grid already has 55,000 servers, and this is expected to rise to 200,000 within two years.


So, no, this is not a case of plagiarism. Move along, nothing to see here...


RE: Plagiarism?
By nstott on 4/7/2008 10:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
OK. I see it now. He linked to The Times of London at the top. Still, it would be better to include an "as reported in The Times of London" with the link.


Tim Berners-Lee and Internet
By Jonjilla on 4/7/2008 2:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just one clarification. Didn't Sir Tim Berners-Lee create the WWW? The story seems to imply he created the entire internet which I don't think is true.




By oldabelincoln on 4/7/2008 10:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly the case.

Berners-Lee is indeed the father of the World Wide Web, which of course is not the same thing as the Internet, which existed long before the web.

No one person or organization created the Internet, although ARPA (know DARPA, I believe) comes the closest, having funded most of the research that led to the Arpanet, which leter became the Internet.

I'm amazed that more readers didn't comment. So much for history...


Jane
By shamgar03 on 4/7/2008 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Does this idea remind anyone else of the sentient computer in Ender's Game, Jane? Basically she "lived" in all the computers of the entire network of humankinds computers, which was possible because of instant communication. At least AI of this type tend to be benevolent =).




RE: Jane
By PrinceGaz on 4/8/2008 4:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that did cross my mind, especially as I'm currently in the middle of reading the third novel in that series, Xenocide.


Brilliant ... but
By jhinoz on 4/7/2008 2:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Anything that improves communication is fantastic and likely to improve the lives of many many people BUT!

quote:
it is only a matter of time, he says, before people entrust all their information to the internet.


Not comfortable with that one thanks very much.




Perfect!
By mezman on 4/7/2008 3:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new internet is known as "the grid" and could send the entire Rolling Stones catalog from Britain to Japan in two seconds, a scenario akin to the RIAA's worst nightmare.


I can think of no better reason to implement this new tech! Get to it!




By piroroadkill on 4/7/2008 4:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Under the new internet you would be able to complete a high definition video telephony call for the price of a normal call on a land line."

This particular example is galling. The only reason you can't have "high definiton" video telephony is because of the articfically crippled upload speeds on most residential broadband connections. There is nothing special about this tech at all, and you've been able to use the internet for video calls for a long, long time, for no extra than your own internet connection cost, it's just stupid. Plus, nobody really cares about it other than camwhores. I'm more than content just speaking to someone, without putting on a show.




And it begins
By General Disturbance on 4/7/2008 9:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
cloud computing, i.e., "The Swirl". Anyone ever heard of C.U.S.P.? The point is approaching.

It's a book.




Judgment day is coming
By leidegre on 4/8/2008 1:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
Skynet ftw!




If it was April 1st...
By Jeff7181 on 4/8/2008 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
... I'd think this was a joke.

"The Grid" sounds like a ripoff of The Net. A couple weeks ago a coworker brought up a point that made me think. How much do we actually rely on technology to survive? How much integration is too much?

Don't get me wrong, I love technology, I work in IT, and the only career I can see myself in is one in IT. But how dependant can we get on technology before it bites us in the ass? If communication, homes and cars are all integrated, it would require massively redundant systems to ensure even nuking a highly populated area wouldn't take out a much larger section of the world simply because it's a backbone to the network.

I'd call the east coast power outage from a couple years back one of the biggest technological disasters of my time. How could so many systems be taken out by a single failure? Is there NO intelligence involved in the power grid?

Things like that can't happen if we're going to integrate technology into our lives more and more.




microsoft
By neo64 on 4/8/2008 11:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
mr bill said that the new Windows7 will be "user centric" meaning that you can access all your personal files from virtually any computer.

i can see MS supporting this new internet.. *ahem* grid




MORE SPAM!
By JonnyDough on 4/8/2008 4:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
"It will lead to what’s known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere."

They say that we'd have this now if it weren't for spam. Spam slows down the internet some huge percentage. Can anyone find a link or clarify this? I know I've read articles on this before.




Internet2
By mixpix on 4/12/2008 2:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
So I believe I have it right when I say "The Grid" consists of the so called "Internet2" servers over in the US. Or IS it really what they call Internet2?

I'm so confused.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129639




Doesn't DailyTech do any research?
By 91TTZ on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki