5 ms·

Not convinced by the use case section. Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download, let alone anything more than a 1gbit (and often less). And if you

by cm2187 5y ago

Not convinced by the use case section. Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download, let alone anything more than a 1gbit (and often less). And if you own the server on the other end, that sort of bandwidth comes at a cost. I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the hardware expensive.

Thaxll 5y ago
Well you need to do some calculation first how much a single TCP stream can provide.
- iso1210 5y ago
  It's not 1998 any more, you've got multiple TCP streams, things like QUIC and other UDP based protocols, and of course good old fashioned window scaling which will go upto an 8gbit window, so as long as you've got an rtt under 300ms you'll be fine at 25gbit.
  - Thaxll 5y ago
    I thought window was pretty limited on modern OS?
    - iso1210 5y ago
      You'll encounter other limitations, like processing 2 million 1500 byte packets a second, which is possible but you need to make sure you have the grunt to process and the right types of options in the kernel http://tm.kit.edu/doc/2019-LCN-100g-tuning-authors-copy.pdf http://tm.kit.edu/doc/2019-LCN-100g-tuning-authors-copy.pdf
arcade79 5y ago
So, I installed my 1Gbit home network around 20 years ago... Quite frankly, I'd expected a 100Gbit uplink by now.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Isn’t a lot of content like YouTube served from edge devices at your ISP, which is what you’re connected to at 25?
- atonse 5y ago
  But what’s the value there? Even 4K high quality video is much less than 100mbps
  - rektide 5y ago
    why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just send the whole video in the first 100ms? this might actually save power; instead of back & forth back & forth with the service, we can transmitnthe whole thing & be done, the server can now go serve other people.
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      I can't find it right now but I remember reading a paper by Cerf? (I'm not great with names) that detailed such a concept. If I remember it I will edit and post a link.
    - mrkstu 5y ago
      Because then you have to cache the whole thing to disk, probably SSD, and increase the wear rate there unnecessarily...
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        SSD wear rate is not a concern
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just send the whole video in the first 100ms? Probably the best argument would be that many/most? people don't watch the whole video.
  - 5y ago
bfz 5y ago
Even where the ports are available, 25 Gbit from a single address is well into the realms of looking like attack traffic in a wide variety of scenarios. Past even 500 Mbit I'm way more interested in latency considerations than raw bandwidth, and practical matters like how to use that bandwidth from my laptop (good luck doing 500 mbit wireless reliably, never mind 25 Gbit!)
- voltagex_ 5y ago
  I've done 600 megabit down from an iPhone here in Australia on 5G, and the latency to Sydney was about 20ms. I'd still rather have gigabit fibre. The fastest I ever saw on 4G was 300 megabit down but the latency could be 40-80ms.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  I have a bandwidth in the low hundreds and it definitely feels excessive to me. But changing from wireless to wired and getting rid of those occasional latency spikes - very noticeable while playing games. A static ip is also something I would want.
- vetinari 5y ago
  > good luck doing 500 mbit wireless reliably Most routers and wifi adapters are crap. Buyers do rarely go beyond "wifi 5" or "wifi 6", and do not realize that there's much more. The older Apple Macbook Pros (pre-2019) came with 3x3 MIMO ac adapters. If you had capable AP on the other side, you could reliably do gigabit with them. The newer ones have only 2x2 MIMO, just like the rest of the laptop market, so you will get only 600-700 Mbps (out of theoretical 866 Mbps). If you are getting 500 Mbps and there's not a concrete wall between your client and the AP, something is quite wrong. Misconfigured AP, your client cannot do multiple streams (yes, there were adapters like that sold on the market), or just older/pre-ac AP or client.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - karakanb 5y ago
    > Buyers do rarely go beyond "wifi 5" or "wifi 6", and do not realize that there's much more. Would you mind elaborating on this? I would like to learn more to revamp my home setup, which is currently on wifi 5.
ugjka 5y ago
I put my bet that the FAAMNG edge nodes could potentially saturate that link unless they get bottlenecked by some disk IO
oceanplexian 5y ago
If you run a large scale Plex server I could see the 25Gbps coming in handy. Most 4K movies (Native Blu-ray rips, not the low bitrate renditions you get on streaming services) run about 50-100Mbps. That would let you stream to 200+ people at once, and have overhead for other things.
rektide 5y ago
> I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the hardware expensive Is it expensive though? We spend how much of our lives online. How much do you think this all-spanning life upgrade costs? What is the price of never ever dealing with buffer-bloat? Take a guess. I calculate it as a one time $356 cost plus labor. You might have paid more for your wifi system. 128 port 25gbe switches are around $20k ($156/port). Transcievers are under $100 and you need one on both ends. For a lot of already deployed fiber, this is a drop in replacement. This is absurdly cheap. Given how cheap this is it's an obvious & enthusiastic heck yes. Who wouldnt throw down $356 right now to get 25Gbe for life? Cost gets a bit more complicated when it comes to the POPs & their uplink. Subscribers are going to be way oversubscribed even with some fairly expensive 100Gb uplinks. As you get further from an exchange the difficulty grows geometrically (because pops become.further hops away from the ix). Peering needs to be bigger too, as does transit (but ask whether the net volume of traffic grows elastically or not), which has costs. But I think we need to frame this question a bit better, of whether it's "worth" upgrading. Honestly costs are so low it doesnt make sense not to; the rest of the world is just milking us, bilking us, charging what the market will bear, protecting it's profit centers, and this company init7 is doing what makes financial sense for the consumer. Donwe need all that? Maybe maybe not. Should we settle for less? There's almost no financial case when the hardware is so so so very cheap. This tech sounds magical but 25Gbe is not exotic, not extreme technology; "the future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed yet".
- dahfizz 5y ago
  It sounds like you're just taking about cost for the ISP to upgrade. To actually realize your faster speeds, you need to spend thousands of dollars yourself on new switches and NICs. And then, as mentioned, the benefits are marginal. You would have to be streaming 10+ 4K movies at once to even "need" gigabit, let alone 25Gbps.
  - rektide 5y ago
    Wifi 7 is expected to be capable of 30-40Gbps. A dual port nic can be had under $200. Currently low/medium port count equipment has no demand, but perhaps the wifi7 world or pressure like init7 generates can make more visible & obvious the market demand. For anyone setting up today, do what I did: (used byt plentifully available) 18 port 40Gbps infiniband switch for $150, nics for $100. I semi agree that I dont think we know what this is for. Never ever having buffer bloat is a tempting first ask. Connectivity is more than the sum of throughputs, as your figures imply- there's questions of availability too. Being able to access each other's systems at near local speeds sounds quite compelling, could help jumpstart post-Big Social computing. You talk about netflix streams, but those are heavily compressed with the best offline encoding on the planet: if i just want to open Steam Remote Play Together & share realtime 4K with a friend, I'd need a lot more throughput since I have much much much less efficiemt encoding. If i wanted Remote Play Together with 3 friends, well, that figures goes up. If my family member also wants to do the same, now we're using a lot or maybe all the throughput & we're starting to have some contested bandwidth, some rising latencies. The truth is somewhere between. Rationalizing ourselves down to what sounds sensible today, to me, is a cruel trick, is not just path dependency but an ideology that believes only in what we have & can see now, & refuses exploration & trying. To me the world & tech is spiritually fueled by why not thinking, by deciding to opt for the extra thats within reach. Forgoing a cheap (still less than the price of a nice tv, by far), available one-time purchase option that vaults us into near-local connevtivity caliber with the world is still a lock in my book.
spaniard89277 5y ago
It's just marketing at this point. It's a best effort service, and with the current tech the overselling is becoming crazy.
lawl 5y ago
> Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download As TFA mentions, same was the case with 1 gbit. I can confirm, I'm on the same ISP and was "early" to have 1gbit/s. Lots of servers still only had 100mbit/s links. These days I have zero issues saturating my 1gbit link. Give it time, now that it starts rolling out, costs will come down and server links will be upgraded. The usual early adopter stuff.
bell-cot 5y ago
This +10. For the vast majority of users, having 25Gbit/sec home fiber is like having a 250 MPH-capable supercar. Big, bad bragging rights. Token-at-best use cases.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Depends on how many people are in your house. You can’t have 5 people driving at 50 MPH with that supercar, but you can with the internet connection.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    5 people in my house, each using 5Gbit/s, sounds far more like the grandkids playing a "mine's faster than yours" game than like any "real world" usage scenario. Similar for 10 people each using 2.5Gbit/sec, or 25 people each using 1Gbit/sec, or ...
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      I routinely need to download 50gigs of updates from Steam. I hate having to wait for them, it would be nice if it took seconds.
judge2020 5y ago
Your best bet on this is probably Google. I get full gigabit upload speed when uploading using Drive for Desktop (previously Drive File Stream).
FpUser 5y ago
You forgetting the case where one hosts their own servers in the basement. Assuming that the connection is symmetric and offers static IP (which it does in my case but "only" for 1GBit/s). Some time ago PC has revolutionized the world by giving access to computer power to general population. This has unleashed a tidal wave of creativity and business. Giving the ability to host own servers to everyone can open up endless opportunities as well. I host some of my own servers and benefit from it greatly.
- ericd 5y ago
  Yeah, I think more home connections going symmetric could open up big personal computing applications that haven’t been super practical before, and make a market for easy-to-use personal home servers. Even just personal media streaming while traveling can benefit greatly from upload being boosted past the 10mbit up that’s somewhat common among cable ISPs. Having a symmetric connection also removes one of the mental constraints that we have at the back of our minds. It’s my biggest hope for internet re-decentralization.
Youden 5y ago
I have the same internet provider and package. While 25Gbps is indeed basically unattainable to anything other than Init7's speedtest server, it's easy to exceed 1Gbps. Software and driver updates exceed 1Gbps all the time, as do game updates/downloads through Steam. Piracy also works really well. Downloading copyrighted media is perfectly legal in Switzerland and I was able to get ~7Gbps real-world speeds from Usenet without too much hassle. It's also really handy for things like backups. As of writing, bandwidth to a Hetzner cloud server is ~5Gbps up/down with iPerf3. I do agree that 25Gbps is more overkill/bragging rights than it is real utility but I think 10Gbps is an easy sell. Keep in mind that there is no change at all to the monthly price of your internet by choosing these higher speeds. 10Gbps has the same monthly and setup costs as 1Gbps, you only have to pay a bit extra for hardware capable of dealing with 10Gbps, which is pretty affordable.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Also with init7, very happy with my 1Gbps line. I'd probably even take a 300Mbps if it was half the price. Even with gigabit LAN I don't saturate the line more than a few seconds a day on things like updates, and anything from my RPi NAS isn't going to saturate it anyways. Please note too, piracy is not legal in Switzerland. What is illegal is the spying and tracking which would be necessary to build a case and prosecute pirates. Technically you could still self-incriminate if you documented all of your piracy, with proof, and published it online.
  - Youden 5y ago
    Downloading is legal in Switzerland. For a nice authoritative source, here's the Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property (part of the Department of Justice and Police)[0]: "Downloading copyright-protected works for private use is permitted in Switzerland (Art. 19 CopA)." The mentioned legal basis is [1]. Note that this applies strictly to downloading though. Participating in a torrent swarm (where uploading is also happening) is not permitted. That's where the technicality you mention comes in: until recently, it was illegal to monitor internet users for copyright enforcement purposes, which meant it was illegal to monitor a torrent swarm, which meant you could somewhat safely seed torrents, despite it being illegal. That loophole was recently removed however. [0]: https://www.ige.ch/en/intellectual-property/counterfeiting-and-piracy/what-does-the-law-say https://www.ige.ch/en/intellectual-property/counterfeiting-a... [1]: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798/en#art_19 https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798/en#ar...
kuschku 5y ago
The useful part is that if you download steam games and your PS5 is updating at the same time, your video call won’t even notice it. The realistic limits are per connection. But with 25Gbps you can just have multiple connections open without any of them ever affecting any other.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > But with 25Gbps you can just have multiple connections open without any of them ever affecting any other. Realistically, this is pretty close to true with 2gbps symmetric, too. My provider seems to give me 2.2gbps in practice. PS5 downloads/updates are 500-600mbps in practice. Steam is 1.5gbps or so. Most other things-- streaming, video calling, etc, are under 40mbps. So, you know-- if I kick off a PS5 download, and a steam update, and my kids are streaming and video calling... And my machines are backing up to the cloud at 1.5gbps (other direction)... and I decide to do a big apt-get update on a machine, maybe my steam update completes a couple seconds later. Of course, I want even faster... but I'm hard pressed to say what would be better.
Salgat 5y ago
Agreed. A 25gbps download will fill an 8TB HDD in 47 minutes, so how much are you going to actually utilize that full bandwidth? Not that any webhost will ever give you even remotely that much bandwidth. I'm on 1gbps fiber and I've never saturated my connected. That would require 40 simultaneous 4K streams going at the same time in my house.
- quacker 5y ago
  I'm wondering: is my storage fast enough to write at 25 Gb/s? SATA drives max at 6 Gb/s, and probably a bit worse than that in practice. M.2 NVMe SSDs can reach 25+ Gb/s on sequential writes. Maybe I could overclock these to squeeze a bit more out too. Although, an 8TB M.2 drive will cost over $1k for now. I suppose there's also RAID. Although, I'm not sure what other limits/gotchas I'd run into there.

by cm2187 5y ago

Thaxll 5y ago

Well you need to do some calculation first how much a single TCP stream can provide.

iso1210 5y ago
It's not 1998 any more, you've got multiple TCP streams, things like QUIC and other UDP based protocols, and of course good old fashioned window scaling which will go upto an 8gbit window, so as long as you've got an rtt under 300ms you'll be fine at 25gbit.
- Thaxll 5y ago
  I thought window was pretty limited on modern OS?
  - iso1210 5y ago
    You'll encounter other limitations, like processing 2 million 1500 byte packets a second, which is possible but you need to make sure you have the grunt to process and the right types of options in the kernel http://tm.kit.edu/doc/2019-LCN-100g-tuning-authors-copy.pdf http://tm.kit.edu/doc/2019-LCN-100g-tuning-authors-copy.pdf

arcade79 5y ago

So, I installed my 1Gbit home network around 20 years ago... Quite frankly, I'd expected a 100Gbit uplink by now.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Isn’t a lot of content like YouTube served from edge devices at your ISP, which is what you’re connected to at 25?

atonse 5y ago
But what’s the value there? Even 4K high quality video is much less than 100mbps
- rektide 5y ago
  why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just send the whole video in the first 100ms? this might actually save power; instead of back & forth back & forth with the service, we can transmitnthe whole thing & be done, the server can now go serve other people.
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    I can't find it right now but I remember reading a paper by Cerf? (I'm not great with names) that detailed such a concept. If I remember it I will edit and post a link.
  - mrkstu 5y ago
    Because then you have to cache the whole thing to disk, probably SSD, and increase the wear rate there unnecessarily...
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      SSD wear rate is not a concern
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just send the whole video in the first 100ms? Probably the best argument would be that many/most? people don't watch the whole video.
- 5y ago

bfz 5y ago

Even where the ports are available, 25 Gbit from a single address is well into the realms of looking like attack traffic in a wide variety of scenarios. Past even 500 Mbit I'm way more interested in latency considerations than raw bandwidth, and practical matters like how to use that bandwidth from my laptop (good luck doing 500 mbit wireless reliably, never mind 25 Gbit!)

voltagex_ 5y ago
I've done 600 megabit down from an iPhone here in Australia on 5G, and the latency to Sydney was about 20ms. I'd still rather have gigabit fibre. The fastest I ever saw on 4G was 300 megabit down but the latency could be 40-80ms.
im3w1l 5y ago
I have a bandwidth in the low hundreds and it definitely feels excessive to me. But changing from wireless to wired and getting rid of those occasional latency spikes - very noticeable while playing games. A static ip is also something I would want.
vetinari 5y ago
> good luck doing 500 mbit wireless reliably Most routers and wifi adapters are crap. Buyers do rarely go beyond "wifi 5" or "wifi 6", and do not realize that there's much more. The older Apple Macbook Pros (pre-2019) came with 3x3 MIMO ac adapters. If you had capable AP on the other side, you could reliably do gigabit with them. The newer ones have only 2x2 MIMO, just like the rest of the laptop market, so you will get only 600-700 Mbps (out of theoretical 866 Mbps). If you are getting 500 Mbps and there's not a concrete wall between your client and the AP, something is quite wrong. Misconfigured AP, your client cannot do multiple streams (yes, there were adapters like that sold on the market), or just older/pre-ac AP or client.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- karakanb 5y ago
  > Buyers do rarely go beyond "wifi 5" or "wifi 6", and do not realize that there's much more. Would you mind elaborating on this? I would like to learn more to revamp my home setup, which is currently on wifi 5.

ugjka 5y ago

I put my bet that the FAAMNG edge nodes could potentially saturate that link unless they get bottlenecked by some disk IO

oceanplexian 5y ago

If you run a large scale Plex server I could see the 25Gbps coming in handy. Most 4K movies (Native Blu-ray rips, not the low bitrate renditions you get on streaming services) run about 50-100Mbps. That would let you stream to 200+ people at once, and have overhead for other things.

rektide 5y ago

> I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the hardware expensive Is it expensive though? We spend how much of our lives online. How much do you think this all-spanning life upgrade costs? What is the price of never ever dealing with buffer-bloat? Take a guess. I calculate it as a one time $356 cost plus labor. You might have paid more for your wifi system. 128 port 25gbe switches are around $20k ($156/port). Transcievers are under $100 and you need one on both ends. For a lot of already deployed fiber, this is a drop in replacement. This is absurdly cheap. Given how cheap this is it's an obvious & enthusiastic heck yes. Who wouldnt throw down $356 right now to get 25Gbe for life? Cost gets a bit more complicated when it comes to the POPs & their uplink. Subscribers are going to be way oversubscribed even with some fairly expensive 100Gb uplinks. As you get further from an exchange the difficulty grows geometrically (because pops become.further hops away from the ix). Peering needs to be bigger too, as does transit (but ask whether the net volume of traffic grows elastically or not), which has costs. But I think we need to frame this question a bit better, of whether it's "worth" upgrading. Honestly costs are so low it doesnt make sense not to; the rest of the world is just milking us, bilking us, charging what the market will bear, protecting it's profit centers, and this company init7 is doing what makes financial sense for the consumer. Donwe need all that? Maybe maybe not. Should we settle for less? There's almost no financial case when the hardware is so so so very cheap. This tech sounds magical but 25Gbe is not exotic, not extreme technology; "the future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed yet".

dahfizz 5y ago
It sounds like you're just taking about cost for the ISP to upgrade. To actually realize your faster speeds, you need to spend thousands of dollars yourself on new switches and NICs. And then, as mentioned, the benefits are marginal. You would have to be streaming 10+ 4K movies at once to even "need" gigabit, let alone 25Gbps.
- rektide 5y ago
  Wifi 7 is expected to be capable of 30-40Gbps. A dual port nic can be had under $200. Currently low/medium port count equipment has no demand, but perhaps the wifi7 world or pressure like init7 generates can make more visible & obvious the market demand. For anyone setting up today, do what I did: (used byt plentifully available) 18 port 40Gbps infiniband switch for $150, nics for $100. I semi agree that I dont think we know what this is for. Never ever having buffer bloat is a tempting first ask. Connectivity is more than the sum of throughputs, as your figures imply- there's questions of availability too. Being able to access each other's systems at near local speeds sounds quite compelling, could help jumpstart post-Big Social computing. You talk about netflix streams, but those are heavily compressed with the best offline encoding on the planet: if i just want to open Steam Remote Play Together & share realtime 4K with a friend, I'd need a lot more throughput since I have much much much less efficiemt encoding. If i wanted Remote Play Together with 3 friends, well, that figures goes up. If my family member also wants to do the same, now we're using a lot or maybe all the throughput & we're starting to have some contested bandwidth, some rising latencies. The truth is somewhere between. Rationalizing ourselves down to what sounds sensible today, to me, is a cruel trick, is not just path dependency but an ideology that believes only in what we have & can see now, & refuses exploration & trying. To me the world & tech is spiritually fueled by why not thinking, by deciding to opt for the extra thats within reach. Forgoing a cheap (still less than the price of a nice tv, by far), available one-time purchase option that vaults us into near-local connevtivity caliber with the world is still a lock in my book.

spaniard89277 5y ago

It's just marketing at this point. It's a best effort service, and with the current tech the overselling is becoming crazy.

lawl 5y ago

> Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download As TFA mentions, same was the case with 1 gbit. I can confirm, I'm on the same ISP and was "early" to have 1gbit/s. Lots of servers still only had 100mbit/s links. These days I have zero issues saturating my 1gbit link. Give it time, now that it starts rolling out, costs will come down and server links will be upgraded. The usual early adopter stuff.

bell-cot 5y ago

This +10. For the vast majority of users, having 25Gbit/sec home fiber is like having a 250 MPH-capable supercar. Big, bad bragging rights. Token-at-best use cases.

cortesoft 5y ago
Depends on how many people are in your house. You can’t have 5 people driving at 50 MPH with that supercar, but you can with the internet connection.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  5 people in my house, each using 5Gbit/s, sounds far more like the grandkids playing a "mine's faster than yours" game than like any "real world" usage scenario. Similar for 10 people each using 2.5Gbit/sec, or 25 people each using 1Gbit/sec, or ...
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    I routinely need to download 50gigs of updates from Steam. I hate having to wait for them, it would be nice if it took seconds.

judge2020 5y ago

Your best bet on this is probably Google. I get full gigabit upload speed when uploading using Drive for Desktop (previously Drive File Stream).

FpUser 5y ago

You forgetting the case where one hosts their own servers in the basement. Assuming that the connection is symmetric and offers static IP (which it does in my case but "only" for 1GBit/s). Some time ago PC has revolutionized the world by giving access to computer power to general population. This has unleashed a tidal wave of creativity and business. Giving the ability to host own servers to everyone can open up endless opportunities as well. I host some of my own servers and benefit from it greatly.

ericd 5y ago
Yeah, I think more home connections going symmetric could open up big personal computing applications that haven’t been super practical before, and make a market for easy-to-use personal home servers. Even just personal media streaming while traveling can benefit greatly from upload being boosted past the 10mbit up that’s somewhat common among cable ISPs. Having a symmetric connection also removes one of the mental constraints that we have at the back of our minds. It’s my biggest hope for internet re-decentralization.

Youden 5y ago

I have the same internet provider and package. While 25Gbps is indeed basically unattainable to anything other than Init7's speedtest server, it's easy to exceed 1Gbps. Software and driver updates exceed 1Gbps all the time, as do game updates/downloads through Steam. Piracy also works really well. Downloading copyrighted media is perfectly legal in Switzerland and I was able to get ~7Gbps real-world speeds from Usenet without too much hassle. It's also really handy for things like backups. As of writing, bandwidth to a Hetzner cloud server is ~5Gbps up/down with iPerf3. I do agree that 25Gbps is more overkill/bragging rights than it is real utility but I think 10Gbps is an easy sell. Keep in mind that there is no change at all to the monthly price of your internet by choosing these higher speeds. 10Gbps has the same monthly and setup costs as 1Gbps, you only have to pay a bit extra for hardware capable of dealing with 10Gbps, which is pretty affordable.

snovv_crash 5y ago
Also with init7, very happy with my 1Gbps line. I'd probably even take a 300Mbps if it was half the price. Even with gigabit LAN I don't saturate the line more than a few seconds a day on things like updates, and anything from my RPi NAS isn't going to saturate it anyways. Please note too, piracy is not legal in Switzerland. What is illegal is the spying and tracking which would be necessary to build a case and prosecute pirates. Technically you could still self-incriminate if you documented all of your piracy, with proof, and published it online.
- Youden 5y ago
  Downloading is legal in Switzerland. For a nice authoritative source, here's the Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property (part of the Department of Justice and Police)[0]: "Downloading copyright-protected works for private use is permitted in Switzerland (Art. 19 CopA)." The mentioned legal basis is [1]. Note that this applies strictly to downloading though. Participating in a torrent swarm (where uploading is also happening) is not permitted. That's where the technicality you mention comes in: until recently, it was illegal to monitor internet users for copyright enforcement purposes, which meant it was illegal to monitor a torrent swarm, which meant you could somewhat safely seed torrents, despite it being illegal. That loophole was recently removed however. [0]: https://www.ige.ch/en/intellectual-property/counterfeiting-and-piracy/what-does-the-law-say https://www.ige.ch/en/intellectual-property/counterfeiting-a... [1]: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798/en#art_19 https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798/en#ar...

kuschku 5y ago

The useful part is that if you download steam games and your PS5 is updating at the same time, your video call won’t even notice it. The realistic limits are per connection. But with 25Gbps you can just have multiple connections open without any of them ever affecting any other.

mlyle 5y ago
> But with 25Gbps you can just have multiple connections open without any of them ever affecting any other. Realistically, this is pretty close to true with 2gbps symmetric, too. My provider seems to give me 2.2gbps in practice. PS5 downloads/updates are 500-600mbps in practice. Steam is 1.5gbps or so. Most other things-- streaming, video calling, etc, are under 40mbps. So, you know-- if I kick off a PS5 download, and a steam update, and my kids are streaming and video calling... And my machines are backing up to the cloud at 1.5gbps (other direction)... and I decide to do a big apt-get update on a machine, maybe my steam update completes a couple seconds later. Of course, I want even faster... but I'm hard pressed to say what would be better.

Salgat 5y ago

Agreed. A 25gbps download will fill an 8TB HDD in 47 minutes, so how much are you going to actually utilize that full bandwidth? Not that any webhost will ever give you even remotely that much bandwidth. I'm on 1gbps fiber and I've never saturated my connected. That would require 40 simultaneous 4K streams going at the same time in my house.

quacker 5y ago
I'm wondering: is my storage fast enough to write at 25 Gb/s? SATA drives max at 6 Gb/s, and probably a bit worse than that in practice. M.2 NVMe SSDs can reach 25+ Gb/s on sequential writes. Maybe I could overclock these to squeeze a bit more out too. Although, an 8TB M.2 drive will cost over $1k for now. I suppose there's also RAID. Although, I'm not sure what other limits/gotchas I'd run into there.