Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

cnx-software.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–259 of 259 posts

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#251

Post by AceJohnny2 »

jcelerier wrote: post #56
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All excellent points but I'd remove gamers from there: > (gamers and video professionals being an exception) I play Stadia, 4K HDR 60FPS, just fine on a gigabit ethernet connection and 150MBit internet connection. Any games not streaming the entire video are fine with just kilobits/s of data, as long as the latency is good. So the case for home 10GE is even weaker ;)

Weird, SteamLink on gigabit ethernet is barely useable here

Perhaps more of an encoding performance issue on the host computer?

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#252

Post by _flux »

ashtuchkin wrote: post #203
_flux wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Docker images are layered for a reason. If you’re having to download multi gigabyte docker layers multiple times, something has gone very wrong. Well the images need to be in some order, and if you are fine tuning the very initial parts of the image, this can happen. But it seems a better transfer algorithm could be used for those individual layers. It rather seems like if they don't match, everything's transferred…

json is used only for manifests; actual layers are .tar.gz.

You are correct; I too hastily took the "payload" in the tar-split.json.gz to be the binary itself, but it's something else.

Nevertheles, an archive format other than .tar.gz could be transferred more efficiently given a previous version of the same image. Or, even .tar.gz could be transferred more efficiently if both ends extract the file first, and if there is a need to preseve sha256, then that needs a bit more work.

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#253

Post by [deleted] »

ericpauley wrote: post #178
_flux wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Docker images are layered for a reason. If you’re having to download multi gigabyte docker layers multiple times, something has gone very wrong. Well the images need to be in some order, and if you are fine tuning the very initial parts of the image, this can happen. But it seems a better transfer algorithm could be used for those individual layers. It rather seems like if they don't match, everything's transferred…

base64-encoding data only poses a 1% overhead[1] when the data is subsequently gzipped, so this is hardly an issue in practice. [1] head -c 100000 /dev/urandom | base64 | gzip | wc -c

[deleted]

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#254

Post by _flux »

ericpauley wrote: post #178
_flux wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Docker images are layered for a reason. If you’re having to download multi gigabyte docker layers multiple times, something has gone very wrong. Well the images need to be in some order, and if you are fine tuning the very initial parts of the image, this can happen. But it seems a better transfer algorithm could be used for those individual layers. It rather seems like if they don't match, everything's transferred…

base64-encoding data only poses a 1% overhead[1] when the data is subsequently gzipped, so this is hardly an issue in practice. [1] head -c 100000 /dev/urandom | base64 | gzip | wc -c

I wasn't really consider space overhead, which as you notice is small, the encoding just something I noticed. Just json+bloatified binary+compression seemed the epitome of solving problems with a hammer when you know the hammer really well.

But as commented to me, that was incorrect, the payload in the files I saw was actually binary-encoded metadata. The actual archives are stored only in extracted form in the client and .tar.gz in the registry. Not that putting binary metadata in JSON is really optimal to me either, but maybe there are terrific reasons for doing it. Just check /var/lib/docker/image/overlay2/layerdb/sha256/*/tar-split.json.tar.gz; the fragments seem to be straight from tar, so maybe tar is used to interpret them?

Certainly .tar.gz files are not the most optimal for the purpose of incremental updates either. It's difficult to say how much a more sophisticated transfer protocol/storage format would benefit registry servers, though some clients could benefit a lot from it.

If a space-efficient merkle-tree-hashed archive-format suitable for efficient incremental updates doesn't exist, then someone should make one ;-).

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#255

Post by zinekeller »

ksec wrote: post #216
zinekeller wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank Intel for single-handedly changing the 2.5Gbps landscape by integrating 2.5Gb Ethernet on their chipsets, allowing no-brainer OEM integration. Unfortunately, unless ISP router OEMs (Nokia, Zyxel, Huawei et al.) do their part (the reason being that very few people actually bothers to buy a separate router), we will not see the economies of scale necessary to fully finish 2.5Gb Ethernet.

But is kind of sad they skip 5Gbps. I thought it was the best compromise for consumer between 1 and 10 Gbps Ethernet.

> But is kind of sad they skip 5Gbps. I thought it was the best compromise for consumer between 1 and 10 Gbps Ethernet.

I suppose forwards compatibility is good, but unfortunatel unlike 2.5Gbps, 5Gbps is practically unusable on existing CAT5e cables.

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#256

Post by liketochill »

sigstoat wrote: post #220
liketochill wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes special connectors to survive being disconnected and reconnected daily and cables left disconnected with out the risk of an accidental laser eye surgery

> It takes special connectors to survive being disconnected and reconnected daily i don't know what you're using, but the LC/LC connectors i use seem pretty durable, and the springy bit that wears out can be replaced. the SFP+ modules are all metal; i am unwilling to believe they can wear out. > and cables left disconnected with out the risk of an accidental laser eye surgery single mode, which isn't human-visible, i…

I mostly deal with single mode and in industrial environments, on top of the safety hazard fibers left dangling tend not to work when plugged back in due to dust. There are special connectors for applications such as ship to shore that address these issues.

Maybe a laser in your eye is an acceptable risk in your home but I doubt it is an acceptable hazard in a work place.

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#257

Post by kortilla »

jiggawatts wrote: post #240
rglullis wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, if it is public (or not-sensitive) data, why make it part of your infra? If you are working with ML and have public datasets, just use the original source. Make a public mirror if you want to collaborate. Make it accessible via BitTorrent. You can bet that the amount of savings you will get from AWS will be enough to give each dev a NAS with a few tens of TB, which then they can even then use to host/mirr…

My specific example was a private data set hosted on-premises (satellite imagery). The analysts were pulling down a ~0.1% sample to develop the ML algorithms locally, and then deploying the final thing in the cloud to run through the whole petabyte. Local development has its advantages, such as high flexibility and very fast cycle times. It's fantastically expensive to outperform a modern PCI 4.0 NVMe drive in the cl…

If it’s on-premises, why are you talking about cloud costs?

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#258

Post by kortilla »

m463 wrote: post #214
kortilla wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of that sounds pretty incredibly wasteful and I don’t think it should be something to strive for more of. Docker images are layered for a reason. If you’re having to download multi gigabyte docker layers multiple times, something has gone very wrong. Azure charges (like the other major cloud providers) by egress data. I feel bad for whoever is paying the bill for 20gbps going out. In general, people in ML shoul…

I also recall the saying "you can't save yourself rich" There are some times when your thinking/workflow is constrained by your environment, sometimes significantly.

But the person is already super rich and has developed such an obscene yacht sinking habit that they are still money constrained.

Re: Add 10 GbE to your system with an M.2 2280 module

#259

Post by doublepg23 »

64bittechie wrote: post #32
glogla wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAS with SSD can go way faster than the ~ 120 MB/s 1GbE can offer. For NAS with HDD, the benefit is not as big but still there. Also, the main competition is WiFi which is significantly slower than 1GbE in most cases.

NAS with HDD and a boat load of RAM can easily saturate 10GbE NIC if you're using it as a media server. Most content on my NAS is cached and rarely touches the disk.

I’m curious how your media content is being cached? Running a PLEX server very rarely would I get ZFS ARC hits even when a blockbuster came out.
Post reply on HN