• Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I am just wondering if it would be better to go straight to fiber instead of ethernet as most have fiber to the home anyway. That should help with future speed upgrades beyond 10Gbit as well.

    Fiber is also more power efficient? Why not?

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      You need more than10Gb/s at home? I mean we all know the 640Kb meme but I’m curious here :-)

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I frequently transfer data over the LAN at a higher rate than my internet connection.

        Kinda wish it was easier to test the connection speed between devices tbh, unless someone knows a good way of doing it but many devices are so locked down I am not sure how you would.

        • hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Even when doing that, the bottleneck is the storage write speed. you can have 1Tb internet connection and it wouldn’t matter unless you have enough users in a home.

          • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Not all data transfer is sending stuff to storage, streaming your display live at a high bitrate for example never needs to go into storage.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              Is more than 1Gbps needed for that? That seems insane, but I’m old and watch stuff in full HD so what do I know.

              • towerful@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                Low latency means low compression. Low compression means high bandwidth.
                1080p60 NDI will be 200mbps. If you are doing 2160p60, that’s 800mbps (which is about the limit I would run 1gbe at). Doesn’t leave much overhead for anything else, and a burst of other traffic might cause packet drops or packet rejection due to exceeding the TTL.

                2.5gbps would be enough.
                But I see 2.5gbps and 5gbps as “stop-gaps”. Data centers standardised on 10/40gbps for a while (before 25/100 and 100/400) - it’s still really common tbh - so the 10gbps tech is cheap.
                I don’t see the point in investing in 2.5/5gbps

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  Thanks for the info, didn’t think the limit was so close.

                  My box has 2.5Gbps but I’m with you on that one regardless of my real needs, I’ll wait it out til 10Gbps. If even my geek needs flare up I mean :-)

                  • towerful@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    14 days ago

                    Most (all?) 10gbe copper switches will negotiate 1/2.5/5 gbps.

                    Most 10g switches with sfp+ will as well, but you also have to make sure the sfp+ ethernet module will negotiate lower speeds.
                    I’ve had some annoying interactions between 1gbps and 10gbps when using different sfp+ switches and sfp+ ethernet modules. I never dug into it, I just swapped stuff around until it worked.

                    So no reason not to get a 10g switch to start building things out