openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to SLD
Re: Pretty scary said by SLD:When you consider that many datacenters have customers with a 1Gbps or 10Gbps link, one or two racks can saturate a link if the data flow is directed thus. Considering the datacenters aren't saturating backbones with existing 40 Gbps capacity, I don't think there will be too much of a problem with backbones upgraded to 100 Gbps. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | I'm just saying that they are woefully underlinked right now, and 100Gbps isn't that high for a backbone if it is heavily used for video or filesharing. One of my clients was spitting out 850Mbps last weekend all by himself, and his site is only in the top 8000. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by SLD:One of my clients was spitting out 850Mbps last weekend all by himself, and his site is only in the top 8000. I'm assuming that 850 Mbps was peak and also spread across multiple backbones. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | It held for quite a few hours, and over one provider, so possibly one backbone to a point. |
|
| reply to SLD
said by SLD:I'm just saying that they are woefully underlinked right now, and 100Gbps isn't that high for a backbone if it is heavily used for video or filesharing. One of my clients was spitting out 850Mbps last weekend all by himself, and his site is only in the top 8000. They just wouldn't be using a single 100Gbps link for each backbone connection from site to site. They have DWDM, which means that can deploy 32, 40, or 80 100Gbps wavelengths on each leg. I imagine currently they are running several 40Gbps wavelengths per leg. Providers that are using 10Gbps backbone links have them bundled and are approaching 10x10 bundles. |
|
