AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier • Hacker News Board

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#41

Post by userbinator » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

rottyguy wrote: post #12

LeonM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data is send serially over a fiber or copper line, bit by bit, not per byte. Also because bytes can be compressed, bits cannot, so giving the throughput in bits-per-second is an absolute value.

Bytes can be compressed in sequence not in singularity (just as bits). I mean why don't we measure storage in bits and not bytes? Just seems unnecessarily confusing.

Actually, memory chips (NAND flash, DRAM) are usually specified in terms of bits, usually using a lowercase 'b' to denote 'bit'.

Online sellers have used this to their advantage, selling e.g. "1Gb" flash drives, with real 1 gigabit flash chips, which turn out to be ~128 megabytes.

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#42

Post by dylz » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

wobbleblob wrote: post #26

deugtniet wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair, AMS-IX is located around the Amsterdam Area (a circle of around 30 km orso), while DE-CIX has locations in the US as well. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but based on these locations, I'd say AMS-IX is the biggest internet exchange serving europe.

The DE-CIX graph seems to be about the Frankfurt exchange. AMS-IX doesn't just serve the Amsterdam area, it's where many undersea cables from North America and the UK enter the European mainland. I'm more surprised that 'List of Internet exchange points' isn't dominated by North American and Asian exchanges. Do they have a larger number of smaller ones?

As far as i can tell all of asia hates each other

My traffic in philippines would actually go out of the country and back in, occasionally via los angeles (like 500ms+) because the incumbent monopoly telco refuses to peer with any other isp, so if you don't use them your traffic is intentionally screwed [there is an IX there for small ISPs, the 99% market share one just doesn't peer there]

Aside from singapore, every other country has something approaching this level of fucked-ness - HK to CN traffic often goes via LA/seattle, TW to CN traffic often goes via LA/seattle, all of china telecom's peering links are oversubscribed to death anyway and fall over during peak hours, a lot of the SEA traffic i've seen traverses singapore or worse, even if it's entirely domestic bound

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#43

Post by Ecco » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

Those numbers seem very low to me, I feel like something doesn't add up. Indeed, 1 GBits FTTx offers from FAI are getting more and more widespread, so that would mean that the peak traffic is around only 4000 simultaneous users?

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#44

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

jo909 wrote: post #18

rottyguy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long does it take to transfer a gigabyte file? Sure we can do the math but why (considering the average person)? Maybe there should be a common core revolution in engineering :-)

I can't do the exact math for that without looking up up a bunch of stuff. I don't how much I need to subtract for the multiple headers and other overhead, how fast the transfer rate gets to the maximum, how many packages get lost, what other factors of the congestion control algorithms might impact my transfer etc

[deleted]

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#45

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

jo909 wrote: post #18

rottyguy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long does it take to transfer a gigabyte file? Sure we can do the math but why (considering the average person)? Maybe there should be a common core revolution in engineering :-)

I can't do the exact math for that without looking up up a bunch of stuff. I don't how much I need to subtract for the multiple headers and other overhead, how fast the transfer rate gets to the maximum, how many packages get lost, what other factors of the congestion control algorithms might impact my transfer etc

Ask Google:

  100 Mbps in MBps.
  250GB / 100 Mbps
  100 Mbps * 0.8 in MBps

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#46

Post by pyvpx » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 3:36 PM UTC

wobbleblob wrote: post #26

deugtniet wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair, AMS-IX is located around the Amsterdam Area (a circle of around 30 km orso), while DE-CIX has locations in the US as well. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but based on these locations, I'd say AMS-IX is the biggest internet exchange serving europe.

The DE-CIX graph seems to be about the Frankfurt exchange. AMS-IX doesn't just serve the Amsterdam area, it's where many undersea cables from North America and the UK enter the European mainland. I'm more surprised that 'List of Internet exchange points' isn't dominated by North American and Asian exchanges. Do they have a larger number of smaller ones?

no, Amsterdam does not have the size amount of peering it does because of submarine cable landings, and DE-CIX is largest by bits exchanged in one single metro area (Frankfurt)

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#47

Post by zifnab06 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

Ecco wrote: post #43

Those numbers seem very low to me, I feel like something doesn't add up. Indeed, 1 GBits FTTx offers from FAI are getting more and more widespread, so that would mean that the peak traffic is around only 4000 simultaneous users?

Usage vs capacity. I have Gbit service at home, but I'm not saturating the link 24/7.

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#48

Post by jo909 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #35

jo909 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't do the exact math for that without looking up up a bunch of stuff. I don't how much I need to subtract for the multiple headers and other overhead, how fast the transfer rate gets to the maximum, how many packages get lost, what other factors of the congestion control algorithms might impact my transfer etc

Try this bandwidth calculator (it's in German, but I think it's not hard to understand) http://www.heise.de/netze/tools/bandbreitenrechner/

You are missing my point: the raw bit rate of the network is not the rate of file transfers. There is a bunch of logic around the raw bits in the wire that make it mich more complicated than dividing by 8

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#49

Post by arianvanp » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

felixmar wrote: post #32

heromat wrote: post #2

"... underlines AMS-IX’s leading position within the global Internet Exchange Point market." Yeah, i.e. DE-CIX is constantly hitting the 4 Tbps barrier for quite some time now and is trending towards 5 Tbps. https://www.de-cix.net/about/statistics/

And the gap will only increase if the proposed intelligence services act (Wiv20xx) is passed by parliament. The act allows the intelligence services to mass surveillance all electronic communication and forces all service providers (not just telecom providers) to pay for surveillance equipment. Besides being morally wrong to mass surveillance everyone when the current act already allows the intelligence services to m…

The MP who proposed the law has lost support of his party recently (The Labor party) to keep on pushing the law in current form.

Also the CTIVD ,the organization that supervises the AIVD (The dutch NSA) has told the law isn't possible to implement in current form.

So the chance that it will pass it pretty small. Though they'll probably juggle around some words and try again so we should stay alert. Luckily it has gotten quite some media attention and people seem to be aware that the law is a bad idea.

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#50

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #41

rottyguy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bytes can be compressed in sequence not in singularity (just as bits). I mean why don't we measure storage in bits and not bytes? Just seems unnecessarily confusing.

Actually, memory chips (NAND flash, DRAM) are usually specified in terms of bits, usually using a lowercase 'b' to denote 'bit'. Online sellers have used this to their advantage, selling e.g. "1Gb" flash drives, with real 1 giga bit flash chips, which turn out to be ~128 mega byte s.

Or 120 megabytes.