AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#1

Post by usethis » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 9:30 AM UTC

AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier
ams-ix.net

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#2

Post by heromat » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 9:59 AM UTC

"... 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/

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#3

Post by jakozaur » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:02 AM UTC

Yay. More peering at Internet Exchanges makes internet faster and cheaper. Europe has the lowest effective cost of bandwidth:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-a...

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#4

Post by porsupah » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:04 AM UTC

By way of historical comparison, consider that in 1992, the ULCC's transatlantic "fat pipe" was a 1.5Mbps circuit:

http://jam.ja.net/marketing/janet30years/images/gallery/grap...

Or that the total traffic served by the University of Bath's website across all of 1997 was 63MB:

https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/bucsha/Computing+Service+His...

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#5

Post by rottyguy » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:21 AM UTC

How come we're still using bits-per-second and not bytes-per-second? Any reason other than being historical at this point?

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#6

Post by JosephRedfern » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:21 AM UTC

porsupah wrote: post #4

By way of historical comparison, consider that in 1992, the ULCC's transatlantic "fat pipe" was a 1.5Mbps circuit: http://jam.ja.net/marketing/janet30years/images/gallery/grap... Or that the total traffic served by the University of Bath's website across all of 1997 was 63MB: https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/bucsha/Computing+Service+His...

Is... is that figure correct!? Conservatively, taking the number of requests at the start of the year, we get 6 million req/year.

6310241024 == 66060288 bytes. 66060288/6000000 == ~110bytes/request. That seems too small. The overhead of the HTTP request alone (without content) would be greater than that!

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#7

Post by fs111 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:23 AM UTC

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/

The Dutch are better at marketing, it seems.

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#8

Post by pmorici » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:24 AM UTC

rottyguy wrote: post #5

How come we're still using bits-per-second and not bytes-per-second? Any reason other than being historical at this point?

Because the size of a byte isn't fixed. It is hardware dependent. There is no definitive standard defining what the size of a byte is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#9

Post by usethis » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:26 AM UTC

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/

Full updated list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_poin...

Re: AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier

#10

Post by LeonM » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:29 AM UTC

rottyguy wrote: post #5

How come we're still using bits-per-second and not bytes-per-second? Any reason other than being historical at this point?

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.