4 ms·

adoption is still pathetic. that we're just starting to see some very faint 2.5gbit adoption is, imo, pathetic. switches have been way too expensive.

cogman10 5y ago
Yup, decade later and the market for 10G consumer switches is nearly non-existent. Everything is stuck at 1G for everything. Were I to guess, I'd say it's probably due to internet speeds in the US taking forever to get up to 1Gbps. There's little reason to push out consumer switches faster than 1Gbps when the inbound internet connection only goes up 100Mbps.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  I'd say it's between that and the vast majority of home devices switching to Wi-Fi anyways. To add a 3rd more minor reason: for the prosumers DACs/fiber is faster, cheaper, and uses less power. The only reason to go to 10GBASE-T is for cases with existing cabling where 2.5G/5G might make a lot more sense if you don't absolutely need 10G. For everything else go 10G/25G passive DAC or fiber.
  - thfuran 5y ago
    PoE is pretty great too.
  - mattsci2 5y ago
    10G also isn't compatible with most of the lower-CAT cabling that's already run in the walls. Most businesses aren't going to tear it all out to start over. 802.11ax can go >10gbps without needing any fixed infrastructure. 10GBASE-T is basically abandonware now, at least for consumer applications. For servers, fiber is even more scalable (25/50/100/400G), and about as easy to handle.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      Yeah cabling is what will usually make 2.5G/5G make a lot more sense if you don't absolutely need the full bandwidth, those speeds give you options for >1G without needing to rip your cabling plant out. Not quite >10 Gbps on 802.11ax though - standards compliant gear has a max theoretical cap of 9.61 Gbps half duplex using 8 spatial streams and 2.4 Gbps half duplex if one end is any current client chip which is limited to 2 spatial streams. Realistic numbers a little lower, I can get ~2 Gbps goodput on an AX210 in the same room as the router on an empty 160 MHz channel. Still far more than any home consumer will need but it's a bit of a ways off of obsoleting wired 10 Gbps full duplex throughput, especially with the cost of 2 8x8 APs.
- Bilal_io 5y ago
  I agree with your guess. But we're starting to see more than 1gbps speeds, however, not everyone will subscribe to them. Xfinity sells 1.2gbps (used to be 1gbps) and 3gbps (used to be 2gbps) to homes, but the upload speeds are horrible. At&t with its fiber offerings just announced 5gbps speeds, but they're very expensive and have horrible practices that prevent you from using anything but their router.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    I've got AT&T's 1Gbps service and you can bypass their router. You just have to log into the web UI and set it up there. At least I was able to do it with mine.
    - Bilal_io 5y ago
      That's not true bypassing, you're still required to keep their router connected. There is another bypass method I used that allowed me to disconnect the router but it was hacky and difficult to execute. The main reason we try to bypass AT&T's router is because their NAT table is capped to accept 2048 entries and starts dropping sessions after it reaches the limit. This is why I stated that the web UI method you mentioned is not a true bypass.
      - csdvrx 5y ago
        Which method did you use?
        Bilal_io 5y ago
        I followed this guide: https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt The gist is that you'll have two ethernet ports dedicated to AT&T, one for the ONT, and one for the gateway router (which needs to have the gateway's mac address). The pfSense interfaces have to be setup a specific way. There is also a script that has to run while pfSense boots. Once it boots, you can pretty much turn off the gateway and put it away. The only time you'd need to reconnect it is if your ONT loses power. I hope that helps.
- conk 5y ago
  There also just aren’t many home use cases for >1gbps networks.
yuhong 5y ago
What I also noticed is they made both 1Gbit and 2.5Gbit Ethernet compatible with Category 5 cables from the 1990s. Even the difference between Cat5 and Cat5e are quite minor.
hinkley 5y ago
I thought part of the draw of io_uring was that, at present, having one process saturate the network was challenging if not impossible. My read is that we are in a bubble where some of the 8 Fallacies of Distributed Systems don't have all of their teeth because, while none of the Fallacies are specifically about noisy neighbors, several of them are decidedly informed by them. If I can't outshout you on the network, then you can be forgiven for ignoring the consequences of network congestion. If we figure out how to saturate a 10GB link between two threads running on different machines, then there will suddenly be a lot of remakes of old lectures.

cogman10 5y ago

Yup, decade later and the market for 10G consumer switches is nearly non-existent. Everything is stuck at 1G for everything. Were I to guess, I'd say it's probably due to internet speeds in the US taking forever to get up to 1Gbps. There's little reason to push out consumer switches faster than 1Gbps when the inbound internet connection only goes up 100Mbps.

zamadatix 5y ago
I'd say it's between that and the vast majority of home devices switching to Wi-Fi anyways. To add a 3rd more minor reason: for the prosumers DACs/fiber is faster, cheaper, and uses less power. The only reason to go to 10GBASE-T is for cases with existing cabling where 2.5G/5G might make a lot more sense if you don't absolutely need 10G. For everything else go 10G/25G passive DAC or fiber.
- thfuran 5y ago
  PoE is pretty great too.
- mattsci2 5y ago
  10G also isn't compatible with most of the lower-CAT cabling that's already run in the walls. Most businesses aren't going to tear it all out to start over. 802.11ax can go >10gbps without needing any fixed infrastructure. 10GBASE-T is basically abandonware now, at least for consumer applications. For servers, fiber is even more scalable (25/50/100/400G), and about as easy to handle.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Yeah cabling is what will usually make 2.5G/5G make a lot more sense if you don't absolutely need the full bandwidth, those speeds give you options for >1G without needing to rip your cabling plant out. Not quite >10 Gbps on 802.11ax though - standards compliant gear has a max theoretical cap of 9.61 Gbps half duplex using 8 spatial streams and 2.4 Gbps half duplex if one end is any current client chip which is limited to 2 spatial streams. Realistic numbers a little lower, I can get ~2 Gbps goodput on an AX210 in the same room as the router on an empty 160 MHz channel. Still far more than any home consumer will need but it's a bit of a ways off of obsoleting wired 10 Gbps full duplex throughput, especially with the cost of 2 8x8 APs.
Bilal_io 5y ago
I agree with your guess. But we're starting to see more than 1gbps speeds, however, not everyone will subscribe to them. Xfinity sells 1.2gbps (used to be 1gbps) and 3gbps (used to be 2gbps) to homes, but the upload speeds are horrible. At&t with its fiber offerings just announced 5gbps speeds, but they're very expensive and have horrible practices that prevent you from using anything but their router.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  I've got AT&T's 1Gbps service and you can bypass their router. You just have to log into the web UI and set it up there. At least I was able to do it with mine.
  - Bilal_io 5y ago
    That's not true bypassing, you're still required to keep their router connected. There is another bypass method I used that allowed me to disconnect the router but it was hacky and difficult to execute. The main reason we try to bypass AT&T's router is because their NAT table is capped to accept 2048 entries and starts dropping sessions after it reaches the limit. This is why I stated that the web UI method you mentioned is not a true bypass.
    - csdvrx 5y ago
      Which method did you use?
      - Bilal_io 5y ago
        I followed this guide: https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt The gist is that you'll have two ethernet ports dedicated to AT&T, one for the ONT, and one for the gateway router (which needs to have the gateway's mac address). The pfSense interfaces have to be setup a specific way. There is also a script that has to run while pfSense boots. Once it boots, you can pretty much turn off the gateway and put it away. The only time you'd need to reconnect it is if your ONT loses power. I hope that helps.
conk 5y ago
There also just aren’t many home use cases for >1gbps networks.

yuhong 5y ago

What I also noticed is they made both 1Gbit and 2.5Gbit Ethernet compatible with Category 5 cables from the 1990s. Even the difference between Cat5 and Cat5e are quite minor.

hinkley 5y ago

I thought part of the draw of io_uring was that, at present, having one process saturate the network was challenging if not impossible. My read is that we are in a bubble where some of the 8 Fallacies of Distributed Systems don't have all of their teeth because, while none of the Fallacies are specifically about noisy neighbors, several of them are decidedly informed by them. If I can't outshout you on the network, then you can be forgiven for ignoring the consequences of network congestion. If we figure out how to saturate a 10GB link between two threads running on different machines, then there will suddenly be a lot of remakes of old lectures.