8 ms·
The historical trend is that storage density grows faster than throughput, and throughput improves faster than latency.
by mjb 9y ago
The historical trend is that storage density grows faster than throughput, and throughput improves faster than latency.
- gm-conspiracy 9y agoSomething video-streaming services and media companies should consider.
- spacemanmatt 9y agoMaybe they did/do? I was surprised and skeptical at some point, about all the heat around video streaming. Codecs and speed improvements have made me a believer.
- ryandamm 9y agoPerhaps we can encode high quality video onto physical media... using microscale structures to _optically_ encode the video data? We could then use snail mail to move these optical storage devices to end viewers. Oh, wait. Darnit.
- gm-conspiracy 9y agoThing bigger. Instead of a movie or few episodes, consider physical media that could store a year or decade of TV shows and movies. What is more likely to occur in the next decade: increasing density and decreasing costs of storage media, OR, increased speeds at the local ISP level with decreasing costs?
- Symbiote 9y ago"The Paquete is an alternative to the web in [Cuba] where, according to some estimates, fewer than 5% of homes are connected. It consists of a terabyte of data bringing together the latest music, Hollywood movies, TV series, mobile phone apps, magazines and even a classifieds section similar to Gumtree or Craigslist. Every week, unidentified curators compile a selection of content and deliver it via a complex network of hundreds of distributors who, much like old-fashioned newspaper delivery boys, bring the Paquete to the door of its subscribers." http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33816655 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33816655
- cle 9y agoThere's a lot of incidental value in on-demand streaming. The streaming company gets immediate and much more intimate feedback about how you're interacting with their product.
- peteretep 9y agoI'm sure the "NetFlix CHILLNAS™" device which you plug into your TV via HDMI can be made to be Wifi-enabled only and absolutely lousy with instrumentation to send analytics back to homebase.
- ryandamm 9y agoEvidently my satire was too subtle -- I was referring to DVDs in the era of early Netflix (Qwikster?). I'm also confronting the possibility that I'm old, and a lot of you whippersnappers have already forgotten about DVDs, CDs, eight tracks, etc. (Though are strangely very tuned in to vinyl.) So yeah: Please get off my lawn. I'm going back to my rocking chair to listen to recaps of Google I/O streamed directly into my hearing aid.
- gm-conspiracy 9y agoNo, I got your reference. I grew up with 5.25" floppy disks.
- ryandamm 9y agoOh, I remember. I remember loading 10 of those things to run a video game, keeping your games in a big file of floppy disks....
- Piskvorrr 9y ago...and latency has a hard physical limit at c/distance.
- comboy 9y agodistance/c
- Piskvorrr 9y agoOh. Right you are.
- plafl 9y agoI was curious about latency and did the following calculations: considering Earth radius (6370km), the minimum distance to your antipodes would be 20000km. Light speed is 300e3 km/s, this means that the minimum time to reach them would be aprox 66ms. I'm in Madrid, Spain. My antipodes would be New Zealand. I searched for "server in New Zealand" which gave me for example www.vpscity.co.nz which I will assume is physically located in New Zealand. Traceroute shows 13 hops taking 310ms round trip time so it's taking 155ms to reach the antipodes and the minimum time is 66ms. I know nothing about networking but I'm impressed.
- comboy 9y agoSo it doesn't seem to be coming any time soon. But I can't imagine that on the long run, moving encoded atoms would be faster than sending encoded EM waves.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoScale matters. The latter is faster almost always - when it's not...well, now that's newsworthy ;)
- comboy 9y agoTo be clear I meant what is going to be faster when amount of data to transfer approaches infinity. But I realized that maybe I'm asking the whole question wrong. We could actually be faster than those track using even CAT-5 today, it's just that the cost of the installation is prohibitive. So I guess the proper form of the question would be when if ever the cost of transmitting using electrons/photons will be lower.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoIMNSHO the demand will expand to fill the increase in capacity. With 1Mbps came video streaming, with 10Mbps came HD video, with 100Mbps came 4K streams. Any capacity the pipe can provide, the network can saturate.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoIt's a lot easier to isolate your atoms from noise. There's a giant nuclear fireball blasting half the planet at a time with EM, everything is radiating EM (even on some of the communication bands!), most of the things will diffract or reflect EM, and we don't know of a way to isolate EM using only EM. So atoms seem to have a better asymptotic isolation in known physics, and thus conceivably might always be faster due to potential noise in the respective channels.
- Terretta 9y agoNeed more work on that speed of light latency problem.