‹header›
‹date/time›
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹footer›
‹#›
Want to answer criticisms such as (from the NANOG list):
Give 'em a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a GigE worth of traffic too
What am I missing here, theres OC48=2.4Gb, OC192=10Gb ...
Production commercial networks ... Blow away these speeds on a regular basis.
So, you turn down/off all the parts of TCP that allow you to share bandwidth ...
I'm going to launch a couple DAT tapes across the parking lot with a spud gun and see if I can achieve 923 Mb/s! What kind of production environment needs a single TCP stream of data at 1Gbits/s over a 150ms latency link? High speeds are not important. High speeds at a *reasonable* cost are important. What you are describing is a high speed at an *unreasonable* cost.
When a reporter from the New York Times asked Everest pioneer George Mallory why he wanted to scale the imposing peak, Mallory's answer was simple: "Because it is there."
For example in medicine:
Radiation oncology for each patient visit (e.g. a mammogram, 2 views, 2 breasts, 4Kx4Kx16bits / picture) between 100 and 500MBytes of data are collected
3M women with mammograms in UK alone, 400TBytes/year for UK
Today often saved as film and diskettes.
Costs savings: e.g. in storage space, and labor to keep it organized, automated digital library can scale to larger numbers of patients Better patient care: ability to share images in real-time with distributed experts, provide ability to mine information for better clues on treatments