Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/3/2012 10:15:42 AM EDT
Why no love for 10GigE? Released in 2007, no desktop has the port capability for it. I expected a strong implementation but instead see little or no usage, except for some network servers.

Unlike USB 3.0, released in 2009 and implemented in 2010, which can be found on new PCs and Laptops today
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:22:02 AM EDT
Price.

10Gb Switches are expensive. Most places are fine with 1Gb switches using aggregation.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:26:16 AM EDT
Right now, 10g is backbone territory. (have you ever priced enterprise grade networking gear? )

We're seeing mostly Gig to the desktop in Corporate Land, but for most purposes even that is still borderline overkill.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:27:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Amish_Bill:
Right now, 10g is backbone territory. (have you ever priced enterprise grade networking gear? )

We're seeing mostly Gig to the desktop in Corporate Land, but for most purposes even that is still borderline overkill.


Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:37:55 AM EDT
In addition to what has already been said, 10Gb over twisted copper (the -T variant) sucks.

Actual file transfer speeds over twisted copper drop by about 70% due to retries. Performance gets worse as the cable gets longer.

For actual 10Gbit performance, use optical cable or shielded copper (usually uses CX-4 connectors).
Passive copper cables with SFP+ connectors will also work, though are not optimal.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:38:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HBruns:
In addition to what has already been said, 10Gb over twisted copper (the -T variant) sucks.

Actual file transfer speeds over twisted copper drop by about 70% due to retries. Performance gets worse as the cable gets longer.

For actual 10Gbit performance, use optical cable or shielded copper (usually uses CX-4 connectors).
Passive copper cables with SFP+ connectors will also work, though are not optimal.


+2
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 10:41:50 AM EDT
I just blew about $15k on an 8 port 10g switch. Thats why.

-Foxxz
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 11:52:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HBruns:
In addition to what has already been said, 10Gb over twisted copper (the -T variant) sucks.

Actual file transfer speeds over twisted copper drop by about 70% due to retries. Performance gets worse as the cable gets longer.

For actual 10Gbit performance, use optical cable or shielded copper (usually uses CX-4 connectors).
Passive copper cables with SFP+ connectors will also work, though are not optimal.


I have used CX4 in a setup and it is FAST.

100% overkill for 99.999% of things.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 12:53:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Foxxz:
I just blew about $15k on an 8 port 10g switch. Thats why.

-Foxxz

~$2,000 per port?!
Did the switch have to be a particular make/model with L3 management?

An Extreme Networks X650 (24-ports) can be had for under $20K, plus SPF+ optical modules.
...and yes, it does wire-speed quite well!



Originally Posted By schizrade:
...
...
I have used CX4 in a setup and it is FAST.

100% overkill for 99.999% of things.

CX4 cabling does well for 10GbE, though the cables are thick, cumbersome and short. The CX4 connectors are also LARGE in comparison to SFP+ connectors, making high-density applications tough.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 5:10:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HBruns:
Originally Posted By Foxxz:
I just blew about $15k on an 8 port 10g switch. Thats why.

-Foxxz

~$2,000 per port?!
Did the switch have to be a particular make/model with L3 management?

An Extreme Networks X650 (24-ports) can be had for under $20K, plus SPF+ optical modules.
...and yes, it does wire-speed quite well!



Went with the cisco 4900M with dual PS and added an 8port 10gbase-t half card. So I guess technically I have 16 10g ports.

-Foxxz
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:31:49 AM EDT
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 7:55:21 AM EDT
Some of the newer server platforms that are either already on the market or soon-to-be-released have embedded 10GbE ports, so it is becoming more common.
Desktops? That'll be a while.

Meta4 brings forth a couple great points:
- data throughput to the disk subsystem is the limiting factor within the computer platform
- data throughput to the WAN (wide area network, or Internet) is the limiting factor everyplace else. Even intranets (networks within a company) are "slow" in this sense.

10GbE does make a lot of sense in server applications where the data stays mostly in RAM, avoiding the limitations of disk storage.
The large search-engine services (Google, Bing, etc) and other active database systems use this methodology. These apps are also distributed across many individual systems to allow for LOTS of RAM and provide many CPU cores.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:20:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 9:20:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.


Until you add VM clusters and Massive RAID arrays to the mix.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 9:22:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schizrade:

Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.


Until you add VM clusters and Massive RAID arrays to the mix.


True and my UCS blades are running 10Gb but the original question was about why no desktop was 10Gb.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 11:25:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By schizrade:

Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.


Until you add VM clusters and Massive RAID arrays to the mix.


True and my UCS blades are running 10Gb but the original question was about why no desktop was 10Gb.


That was covered. No point. Now we are off on a tangent.
Link Posted: 1/8/2012 8:14:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.


Sorry, I just have to smirk since if I had 10gig to the desk my WAN connection wouldn't be the bottleneck.
Link Posted: 1/8/2012 8:40:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2012 8:41:31 AM EDT by HBruns]
Originally Posted By schizrade:

Originally Posted By paadams:
Originally Posted By Meta4:
As others have stated, the price of 10Gb is keeping it firmly in backbone territory. We just upgraded the interconnects on our 6500s (VSS) to 10Gb, and even that is overkill at the moment.

The other reason is the complete lack of necessity. We still use 100Mb to most desktops these days (althought that pendulum is finally starting to swing) and we rarely see high utilization. The desktops that have converted to gigabit never see above 10-15% utilization. There is simply no reason to run 10Gb to the typical desktop. What the heck would they do with it anyway? Your WAN speed and the disk speed on your file servers would become your bottleneck.


Even with 1Gb your WAN speed and disk speed is the bottleneck. 10Gb to the desktop is beyond pointless unless it was the same cost as 1Gb.


Until you add VM clusters and Massive RAID arrays to the mix.

Which puts us firmly into backbone territory.

A few years ago 1-GbE was used for backbone only, and it was just a few of the faster intranets that were running at 100Mbit.
I expect 10-GbE to eventually migrate to the desktop, just not "soon".

Anyone remember the horrible problems getting 1-GbE running reliably on CAT-5 cabling... even long after the specifications were finalized and product was on the market?
It was ugly for a while, and now it is ubiquitous. I suspect we will need to replace CAT-5 (or even CAT-6) with fiber to make it work well, which is a barrier for adoption ($$).
Link Posted: 1/8/2012 10:11:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HBruns:
Which puts us firmly into backbone territory.

A few years ago 1-GbE was used for backbone only, and it was just a few of the faster intranets that were running at 100Mbit.
I expect 10-GbE to eventually migrate to the desktop, just not "soon".

Anyone remember the horrible problems getting 1-GbE running reliably on CAT-5 cabling... even long after the specifications were finalized and product was on the market?
It was ugly for a while, and now it is ubiquitous. I suspect we will need to replace CAT-5 (or even CAT-6) with fiber to make it work well, which is a barrier for adoption ($$).


Tbh, I've had more problems with 100bT than 1000bT, Cisco and Sun got in a bitch fight about how 100bT autoneg worked, and would consistently duplex mismatch unless you locked both sides. 1000bT autoneg works *great*, only problems I've ever seen are
1. shitty cables
2. when you *do* try to lock duplex, sometimes it causes issues
Top Top