Gigabit ethernet has been standard on consumer electronics for

>>61065879
as soon as the bandwidth is needed in terms of drive speed and internet speed

>>61065879
Hard to say, I switched to gigabit over a week in my job. It was still using fast ethernet.

>>61065897
SSDs are already many times faster than gigabit ethernet my dude, even 7200 RPM hard drives can transfer at a little higher than gigabit speed on sequential files.

>>61065923
yes, so as soon as the majority of storage is not hdds anymore
which is quite some time

>>61065879
heh

i only had adsl since 2010 and 1.8Mbps. there's no intention of improve speeds at all, but at least the last year or two it has been consistent. previously it would be as slow as dialup, drop the connection entirely at least once a day, or go down for days.

t. 3rd world shithole

>be american
>Have ComCast
>its the only ISP available in my area
>Housed is wired so shitty that there is only one line to have a router connected to
>Have to run an access point across the house to a wi-fi repeater to get 20/20
Fuck

10GB copper is only good for short runs, anything else don't even bother

tfw 100 mbit switches at office.

1 GBs dl speed.

The fastest 10K 3.5 hdd only transfers max at little over 150 MB/s. The standard 7200 rpm drive is little slower, which is what the vast majority of all data is stored on. Sata interface speed don't really mean much if the drive itself is limitation. 150MB/s equals 1.2 Gbps so really in real world situations GB Ethernet is still fine.

>>61065879
You can now get a 16 port 10GbE switch (12 SFP+/4 10GBASE-T) for like $500, so thing are getting there.

The remaining challenges are:

> decent wifi is good enough for normies, especially in comparison to the shit that is mobile data
> UTP is on its last legs above 1Gb. 10GbE requires at least 2 of: short runs, expensive/PITA cable, or power-hungry transceivers using LDPC
> low volume equipment = high prices, stalling shit further

It honestly not all that expensive to make your own 10 GbE NAS/switch/workstation setup though if you truly need it though.

Why would you even need 10GB in the home? Most devices are limited by design, ex: most wired streaming media players are limited to 100meg, WiFi speed is still not even GB yet, your internet speed ain't no where near GB yet, your data trans rate is limited to your 3.5 7200 rpm drives, which tops out at 150 mb/s = 1.2GB so really there is no need for 10GB in the home. Now office/large corporations it makes sense cause 10GB is for backbone main connections to the core infrastructure so the core don't get overloaded.

>>61065954
I am pretty sure this is addressing things within a large lan, where transfer speeds or gb/s+ occur regularly. This should have been pretty obvious.

>>61065879
why not go terrabit?

>>61066211
So run coax to another fucking room holy shit

>>61066758

>your data trans rate is limited to your 3.5 7200 rpm drives, which tops out at 150 mb/s = 1.2GB so really there is no need for 10GB in the home.

There's this thing called 'RAM' and another thing called an 'SSD'. I have both.

>>61066648
How? Teach me senpai!

>>61066834
Your data drives which is what a lot of people store all there high volume (ex TB) aren't SSD. I don't think it'd be a financially good move to store several TB on SSD's when reg drives are better way to go but that's me.

>>61066811
This. Comcast will even do it for like 20 bucks

>>61066930
> buy 2 cheap used SFP+ cards off ebay, throw one in your workstation
> build a NAS box (if you don't already have one), throw the other SFP+ card in it
> make sure you have lots of RAM and/or an NVMe SSD for read caching now, since you'll actually need it to saturate a 10Gb line
> use a direct attach twinax copper cable to connect NAS to workstation if you're too cheap to buy a switch immediately, otherwise just buy the fucking switch

ta-da, you now have networked storage that's faster than any SATA SSD and more usable than a local NVMe SSD for more realistic uses.

File: 1498172221927.gif (2MB, 200x222px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x222px

What the fuck is wrong with all you newfags? Let me break this down so even juniors (everyone else in this thread) can understand.

>Muh internet is too slow xD LEL
10GbE for WAN is not the point, LAN transfer speeds are. Unless you are a medium to large business with multiple campus' or similar topology, you will have NO use case for 10GbE WAN.

>Muh need for it doesn't exist
Two hosts with a single SSD each can easily saturate single gigabit links (as >>61065923 correctly pointed out).
RAID 0, 5, 10 with 2, 3, 4 conventional drives respectively can saturate gigabit links.

>Muh 10GbE is only good for short runs
10GBase-T has a max run length of 100 meters, just like 1GBase-T. CAT7 and CAT6 is not expensive anymore, only marginally more than 5e. You can even use CAT5e for home as long as you use STP and it's rated for more than 350mhz. You loose some speed obviously, but the cabling cost/performance/availability argument has no leg to stand on anymore.

>Muh wallet hurts
You can get an Intel X540-T2 for under $200 that is made from ghost runs on Intel's manufacturing lines. Genuine adapters are not much more. As >>61066648 correctly pointed out, you can get sub $500 switches now easily. If you don't want to deal with transceivers and SFP+, Netgear makes 8 and 12 port 10GbE switches for a few hundred bucks.

>Muh use case for home
I have one box with a 24TB array of 7200rpm spindles and a 4TB array of SSDs. All wired PCs in the house are driveless, and boot from iSCSI. This makes for easy and efficient data management (dedupe, backup, etc.) and all laptops are AC that boot from small internal SSDs and have a second iSCSI target for data storage. You can't tell the difference even with doing sysadmin work. All of my virtualization hosts have no internal storage since they boot from FCoE.

All of this has cost me less than 4K over a year, given that I do pickup free gear from work.

I never have to wait for anything, ever.

>>61067103
I should clarify, 4K for all of my gear.

Two X540-T2 cards and a netgear 12 port 10GbE switch were under 1000 bucks USD.

File: hdd read speeds.png (92KB, 1032x1811px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1032x1811px

>>61067103
>RAID 0, 5, 10 with 2, 3, 4 conventional drives respectively can saturate gigabit links.

A single 5400 rpm can get bottlenecked by 1GbE (~120-125 MB/s) for big linear reads quite easily.

File: rly.jpg (19KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x400px

>>61067210
Yes, I realize this but to prevent the slippery slope of what CAN but may or may not (which you did anyways), I pointed to RAID, which is becoming fairly ubiquitous in home/consumer usage.

But 10GbE for single, 5400rpm drives do not typically make sense. Are there any other obscure scenarios that I omitted for the sake of brevity that you would like to point out? A RAID0 of Class 10 MicroSD cards, perhaps?

>>61067210
Oh, and neck yourself for telling me something I already know, you pedantic faggot.

>>61066944

We're talking about personal computers. Not backup arrays so I have no idea what the fuck you're going on about. I don't work from my NAS, I work from my computer, which has an SSD and RAM, so no, a 10GB Ethernet connection won't be lost on my machine and my machine won't bottleneck the connection.

>>61065879
Probably won't. They recently invented 2.5gb/s (cat5e) and 5gb/s (cat6+) as a half step because 10gb/s was too much of a pain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5GBASE-T_and_5GBASE-T.

>>61067347
This shit won't take off. The only thing limiting 10GbE is power consumption and the cost associated with lower power consumption (compared to enterprise gear).

>>61067103
>Unless you are a medium to large business with multiple campus' or similar topology, you will have NO use case for 10GbE WAN.
Not true. It'd be really good for bittorrent in and file sharing in general. A single 10 Gbps seed would meet the needs of hundreds of leechers. It would be easier to seed a broad range of torrents if you didn't need a ton of seeds per torrent to make decent download speeds.

>>61067103
Also, faster speeds could lead to more in-home data centers. Why bother colocating if you've got 10 Gbps to your house? This is how it was in the early days of the internet. People would just run BBSes and homepages from their basement.

>>61067881
And what ISP is going to provide a 10GbE connection to your premise? I'll be generous to your point, assuming you could find one, what would the cost be? Oh, right, thousands of dollars a month for a WDM connection. Unless you live in Chattanooga, buttfuck Vermont, shithole Detroit.

10Gbit WAN to consumer premise is extremely rare and otherwise moot. Is your use case valid? Technically, yes. Is it practically feasible? No.

>>61067945
This is a nerd-boner that is far from reality. In home data centers are not economical given the existing "cloud" infrastructure. How do you enjoy working in retail?

>>61066504
Easy bandwidth cap so you don't just go downloading shit all day

>>61067972
>And what ISP is going to provide a 10GbE connection to your premise?
That's not the point. I was saying that there is a use case for 10 Gbps WAN.

>shithole Detroit
I'm five minutes from shithole Detroit. The 10 Gbps service you're talking about is only available downtown though, which is actually a really nice area.

> Is it practically feasible? No.
It would be feasible if AT&T didn't steal billions of dollars that were meant for infrastructure upgrades. It would also be feasible if our government wasn't run by retards that threw out the idea of laying fiber with all new public road projects.

>>61068008
You don't actually need enterprise equipment to run a web service. Most people around here could do it with their old FX-8350 or whatever. Most things don't need five nines.

>How do you enjoy working in retail?
Good laugh mate.

>>61068384
I did not say that you need enterprise gear to run a web service. Are you retarded?

I said, to paraphrase for the challenged, who the fuck is going to get a 10gbps internet connection to their home for a seedbox or any other web service?

>>61068502
>I said, to paraphrase for the challenged, who the fuck is going to get a 10gbps internet connection to their home for a seedbox or any other web service?
Again, besides the point. If 10 Gbps were commonly available, what I said would be a potential side-effect of it. Those two posts were specifically in response to you saying "you will have NO use case for 10GbE WAN", which is wrong.

>>61065879
Most people never will use it.
Most still dont even take advantage of a gigabit port.
Most people never do in home networking.
Even with fast internet, your speeds are often slower than what most websites will run at.
Most sites seem to have their upload throttled.

I really dont see 10 gigabit becoming standard in a home setup. There for a while gigabit was standard but then companies even started taking that ability away so they could use cheaper 10/100mpbs chips.

>>61068358
An obscure use case that isn't really a use case at all, given that just about every other possible way is better at achieving the desired result.

>Detroit
>Nice Area
Pick one faggot.

>feasible if our government wasn't run by retards

Okay, go ahead and run for office so that you can change US domestic policy to allow for your 10GbE home connection for you seedbox "use case".

I loathe people like you for watering down the talent in this field.

Ethernet is going to die. Have fun dealing with Thunderbolt.

>>61068533

Any more hairs you would like to split? You can make a use case for anything on paper fagget, that doesn't mean it's practical, useful or a good idea.

>>61068557
God fucking damnit retard. 10 gigabit internet connection (read WAN), I agree, it's not useful en mass.

10 gigabit LAN is extremely useful for home.

File: detroit.jpg (250KB, 1280x668px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1280x668px

>>61068557
>Most still dont even take advantage of a gigabit port.
Lots of normalfags try to upload video from their phone to the cloud, and 10 Gbps would make it easier to share 1080p and 4K video. 1 Gbps would be a nice start though.

>>61068565
>An obscure use case that isn't really a use case at all
Bittorrent is an obscure use case? That's hilarious, you're really reaching now.

>Pick one faggot.
You've clearly never been to downtown Detroit. Pic related. Though you're clearly the kind of person that comments on things you have no experience with.

>>61068595
>that doesn't mean it's practical, useful or a good idea.
>I don't like change and people having fast internet is going to put me out of my CloudOps(TM) job.
Go be agile somewhere else.

I've got roughly 9TB of data and that will only grow as years pass. Mean while my internet speed is only 10 meg and won't get any faster anytime soon cause my isp charges me $46 for my current ten meg so to "upgrade" would cost me like close to $100 for there top of the line plan. It would be very time consuming to backup all that to the cloud. Far better & cheaper to have it as it is now, server with raid +ups+ full offline split backups of all data. And before people say "switch isp" ,for me that ain't really an option, my area my internet/cable is limited to really only one company (city owned power/water/telecom)

>>61065879
>standard on consumer electronics for a decade
while it may have been a standard, many consumer routers still can't achieve gigabit speeds in WAN/LAN or LAN/WAN throughput.

Sure LAN/LAN will be gigabit, but being limited to a local network for your gigabit speeds is somewhat bullshit, especially when it's been a standard for this long.

>>61067103
>paying $200 to transfer files from device to device slightly faster
>most consumers only own one ethernet-connected device with local file storage anyway
>most large datasets are designed to be streamed at 50Mbps or lower and their existence as files is just a coincidence of the exact method used to pirate them

1000 came when a 10/100/1000 controller was within about 10 cents of a 10/100 controller in bulk quantities. 10Ge is currently about $20 out from there. It'll be a long, long while unless adhoc clustering finally takes off and there's a consumer application.

File: rektunigger.png (347KB, 376x503px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 376x503px

>>61068622

>Bittorrent is an obscure use case? That's hilarious, you're really reaching now.

A seedbox that is popular enough to utilize some or all of a 10 gigabit connection would warrant being collocated. It's call doing things properly. High traffic services of any kind being served from a residential home is obscure.
You seeding your 10TB Loli collection to your friends is obscure.

>You've clearly never been to downtown Detroit. Pic related.

I have, and it was the filthiest nigger infested shithole that I've been to.

>Though you're clearly the kind of person that comments on things you have no experience with.

Lol. Pic related, it's the data center I run.

>that doesn't mean it's practical, useful or a good idea.
>I don't like change and people having fast internet is going to put me out of my CloudOps(TM) job.
>Go be agile somewhere else.

Lmao. I am all for getting speeds like that to residential, but I actually know what I'm talking about enough to know it's not feasible or cost effective. Not every consumer is a faggot that wants to run seedboxes and mini data centers from his house. Get some fresh fried chicken air in downtown D-town nigger. I dislike cloud services and I don't even sell anything!

Rekt.

>it's not feasible or cost effective

Clarification, with current demand, it is neither of the above. 4K streaming becomes ubiquitous? Yes, 10Gbit WAN is guud. Deferred client computing? Yes, 10Gbit WAN is guud. Are either of those things in demand to millions or tens of million? No, not yet anyway.

>>61068691
The only people that hoard data close to or above double digit TBs are faggots on /g/, people in the field (that have no life outside of work) and people in graphics, media and music.

Have you checked the price for 1TB of backup space lately? Oh yeah, it's a few hundred bucks a month at the cheapest. If you're going to back all of that up, you might as well colo a box and walk a fucking hard drive over to it once a week.

>>61068725
When I transfer TB virtual machines between my devices from my home office, yeah, slightly faster makes me more money.

Most consumers don't even utilize 1gbps on their LAN regularly.

You missed my point entirely. Spotted the helpdesk kid. How's your first week going?

>>61068622
>Lots of normalfags try to upload video from their phone to the cloud, and 10 Gbps would make it easier to share 1080p and 4K video. 1 Gbps would be a nice start though.
I fucking hate the cloud so dont think Im about to be its ally,
but do you have any clue what would happen to cloud prices if normies were granted the ability to upload 1080 and 4k video at the speed of light?
I fear the repercussions of this would spill over into the normal tech market and even advertising markets will punish us with their "adblocking is stealing" bullshit.

>>61068894
>but do you have any clue what would happen to cloud prices if normies were granted the ability to upload 1080 and 4k video at the speed of light?
Not much if 10 Gbps was cheap enough that consumers could afford it.

>>61068608
>10 gigabit LAN is extremely useful for home.
Yea it is. Im about to upgrade a bunch of shit to take advantage of gigabit myself, but unfortunately I wont be upgrading enough to do 10g stuff.
What type of drive do you have to have to use those speeds other than ramdisks

>>61068921
10gbps may be cheap, but hdds wont be priced any cheaper.
If every whore could flood the net selfies and vines 100x more efficiently.. I cant even imagine.

File: 2017-06-22 10_14_04-.png (6KB, 298x102px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 298x102px

focus on wider spread 1gbps before jumping on the 10gbps train.

>>61068923
See >>61067103
>I have one box with a 24TB array of 7200rpm spindles and a 4TB array of SSDs

I wasn't being sarcastic, brainletta, I actually do see 10gbit as useful at home for prosumers.

This is my private gear for my home. Too lazy to type out my home-office gear.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I

>>61068942
There is WAAAYY more untapped storage capacity on the Internet than anyone could possibly need. If 10 Gbps were commonly available it would force a restructuring to a more decentralized model. So instead of just storing everything on one centralized server it would use the users as peers. Think IPFS.

>>61069004
I run nested virtual machines though samba.. I also see 10gbit as something that is useful.
what does brainletta mean, were you trying to talk shit?

>>61069001
Agree, I have to use multiple wan because I can't get gigabit at home. I would almost never have to go to the DC if I had a gigabit to my house.

>>61068923
My personal gear are WD Red Pros and WD REs. SSDs are Intel for work, Samsung and Adata (don't bitch me out) for personal.

>>61069016
If you think Im wasting my storage for some whores instagram you can fuck off.

>>61065879
>Gigabit ethernet has been standard on consumer electronics for a decade
Nope. 100Mbps were still the standard consumer ethernet up until few years ago. This mainly changed due to the Gigabit frenzy.

Atbest 5 years is what I'd give for the consumer 1Gb standard.

>>61069042
I was trying, wasn't sure if you were agreeing or being sarcastic. No tone with text.

Nested VMs, totally get you. Samba? Not great but it works. iSCSI is ideal.

>>61069043
>Agree, I have to use multiple wan because I can't get gigabit at home
only way i can do it is by turning off all traffic monitoring and QoS on my ISP provided router.

The only asus router that can give 1gbps WAN is the $300 octopus looking router.

I want that hardware without the wifi in a basic router package for $200 and i'd be all over it.

>>61069054
If you don't visit some whore's instagram them nothing from it would get cached on your node.

>>61069043
>Adata (don't bitch me out)
Got a good chuckle.
Ill have to look up the difference between red and red pros. I was going to use wd red 7200 for my storage, but hgst 7200 was on sale for a far better price so we hgst now.

I dont know alot about this stuff. I doubt youd be so wreckless asto put it in raid 0, what configuration do you use that permits these speeds with a mechanical drive?

>>61069074
The Asus Dark Night (RT-N66U, AC-xxU) are the ones you are thinking of. They're pretty good as far as consumer gear goes. Their firmware is disgusting sometimes though, better than d-dink, toiletpaper-link and netqueer garbage.

I use pfSense for my Edge router. My core router is Cisco Meraki because they gibbs it to me for free.

I probably have 30k worth of networking gear alone in my house.

>>61069106
I'm debating picking up an i3 barebones tower for $200 on sale, throw a i350-T2 gigabit NIC or similar in there and then run pfsense on it.


Should be able to handle gigabit WAN throughput. Or very close to it.

>>61069098
They are fast but not reliable, horrible RMAs. Better than OCZ (no longer around but released first SSDs).

Normal reds are 64mb cache, 5400rpm. Pros are 7200RPM and 64 or 128mb cache and some other marketing bullshit. HGST is alright, stay away from Seagate.

I use RAID10 for most stuff, RAID5 for non-important data that need lots of read IOPS. RAID5 shouldn't be used anymore for anything but expendable data, and it's useless for heavy writes, even with write caching.

Ask away, will answer any questions.

>>61068725
let me break it down for you, beardo

people whose legs haven't fallen off from the mountain dew-induced diabetes are not interested in paying $4,000 a year so they don't have to stand up and sneakernet a thumb drive ten feet to their kodi box, nor are they interested in paying $4,000 a year for it to buffer only 10x faster than realtime rather than 100x

>>61065879

The problem is that transmitting 10Gbps and beyond over metal is a PITA.

The masses perfer wireless ethernet so mainstream demand is pretty much a niche at best.

>>61069136
Pretty sure that's exactly what he said.

>>61069149
>perfer wireless ethernet
what did he mean by this

>>61066228
If only there was something other than copper to use. Oh wait, that's right, there is.

>>61069128
Oh yeah dude, people don't understand that gigabit is not heavy to modern CPUs. I was running pfSense on a quad core Atom on one of my LANs and CPU only floated around 25% under full gigabit transfers. an i3 would be more than enough.

>>61069136
THANK YOU. I've been trying to say this the entire fucking thread.

Buddy with his >muh seedbox usecase

>>61069060
I see you might have also been trying to reply to the other guy. Idk im too tired for this shit. Im the guy you first linked to in your post using the word "brainletta".. The second guy looked to be talking shit.

I wasnt talking shit btw, just a chill conversation.

>iSCSI
Ill look into that, I either hadnt heard of it before or looked over it assuming it to be a physical interface.
Doing the vms though samba was done in a pinch. I have an assortment of vmware, virtualbox, and kvm vms. Im trying to migrate them all to kvm, and each one has to be manually sorted, files extracted, bookmarks, web history, fucking everything. I quit vmware on linux because it wouldn't work right, so I wound up using vmware in virtual box and running the nested vm though samba so I wouldn't have to allocate a massive image just to transfer in yet another image. This way I can load a 100gb image on a machine with a 10gb hardrive with only 2 gb free
It was some what slow starting up, but surprisingly acceptable performance later on, granted it was all on the same computer. I forgot I was even inside of 2 vms and wound up watching youtube for a few hours and then tripped out when I opened the start menu and realized I hadnt had a start menu in years

>>61067608
Why not? It works with people existing cabling and is far easier to implement than 10G. By the end of '18, most routers, switches, motherboards, and laptops will ship with it.

10G will take at least 2020 to start catching on in consumer stuff.

>>61069158:

>>61066228 is wrong, 10gbase-t is good up to 100 meters. For you retards that don't understand base-**, base-t means twisted pair, or a normal fucking category X ethernet cable

>>61069171
You might be retarded so I need to reiterate that I was saying that Bittorrent is a use case for 10 Gbps that pretty much everyone would benefit from because even normalfags use popcorn time. I didn't say they would pay for 10 Gbps at current prices to get it. If they were going to do that, they'd already have 10 Gbps, so I didn't think you were dumb enough to assume something like that.

>>61068725
It's future proofing, his file transfers are only going to be larger and go faster as time goes on, and he'll be good for up to 10x the speed of GbE.

>>61069157

Normies have always hated wires. Wireless Ethernet is what sells in the mainstream market.

>>61069134
>stay away from Seagate.
oh yea, I made it a point to avoid them.

Ok thank,
>raid 5
I heard that the recovery process of raid 5 is likely to destroy another drive in the process and that raid 6 is its replacement that should be used, is this true?

>>61069160
I'm looking to run snort or similar packages, so I expect to need the CPU a bit more.

>>61069206
>Wireless Ethernet
What does he mean by this?

>>61069216
Think Telsa

>>61065879
i'd much rather see faster internet speeds. A lot of people are still on 10/10

>>61069216

You are stupid or dense as concrete?

Wireless Ethernet = Wi-Fi a.k.a transmitting frames over microwaves.

>>61069191

Because IEEE doesn't want to implement quarter and half steps when 10gbe is already used in enterprise widely. Do you understand the back implementation that would have to be done?

10GbE already works with existing cabling, 5e will work but not at 100m full speed. Changing out the cabling is cheaper than changing out gear to 2.5 and 5gbit that doesn't even exist yet beyond paper.

It's not far easier to implement, at all. This is just plain sheer retardation from the flame retardant in your mountain dew.

Have you not noticed that ethernet always increases by a factor of ten? 10, 100, 1000, 10000? Do you not understand that the components that make up all this technology scale in specific ways (I.E. FREQUENCY IN hz, mhz, etc.)

>>61069249
>Wi-Fi
Then he should say so

Wireless ethernet is not and never has been a thing.

>>61069259
Isn't Wi-Fi basically a wireless implementation of the Ethernet protocol, essentially making it wireless Ethernet?

>>61065954
I had SDSL 1.5Mbit up and down back in 1998 and I thought it was glorious.

>>61069179
No worries brocade.

Most recent Intel core i5, i7 chips support extended page tables and shit for nesting virtualization. You don't really take a huge hit for it anymore.

I see what you did but it's a bit of a roundabout way of doing it. Fine for home, but I would fire someone that did it in production.

It's easy to get lost in the inceptions of VMs and RDP sessions kek.

VMWare is great for some things, great feature set and tunables but it's a finicky fucker. If you're doing straight Windows, just use Hyper-V. It works GREAT for Windows guests VMs. You don't need all the obscure, complicated shit of other solutions.

>>61069270
Ethernet is basically the interface (like SATA or IDE)

Wifi is the method of transmission. You usually just call it wireless or 802.11 b/g/n/ac

>>61067608
>>61069191
Dunno about all that considering anyone who I've seen that offers over a gigabit usually has two lines they can either bond at home or run as two separate links. Most consumer routers are already moving towards dual WAN anyways already which should continue on though. They'll likely go the cheapest route and expect consumers to bond at the home or use as two different links.

>>61069195
Just neck yourself already, you lost.

Talking to me about popcorn time and shit. Do you manage a data center? Have you been working as an architect for fortune 500s for a decade? No? Fuckoff m80.

>I need muh 10gbit for normie movies.

Have fun with that when the majority of torrents can barely push 100kbps because there are 2 seeds. One in India and the other in the middle of the desert on a sat connection.

>>61069322
It's still using the Ethernet interface though, right? So while it's generally known as Wi-Fi, calling it wireless Ethernet isn't really wrong.

>>61069334
>It's still using the Ethernet interface though, right?
no

>>61069253
>Have you not noticed that ethernet always increases by a factor of ten?
Look at this nigga that don't know about 40GbE.

>>61069342
>Ethernet is the interface
>Wifi is the method of transmission
you shouldn't've said it was then.

>>61069207
That's correct. Calculating parity is REALLY hard on the other drives, so if there are bad sectors or another failure, you will lose the array with little or no chance of recovery.

Raid6 (double parity) can mitigate this, but at that point you will have to have at least 4 drives, so a RAID10 would be ideal (at least one failure tolerated). Unless you need the maximum space or the data is expendable/backed up elsewhere, stay away from 5 and 6.

>>61067945
This is exactly why they won't let this happen. This was stifled back in the 90's already. It would be a huge boom for small and home businesses which could compete with larger companies. That would be too much like free market which is bad to the oligarchs and commisars.

>>61069304
>I see what you did but it's a bit of a roundabout way of doing it. Fine for home, but I would fire someone that did it in production.

What do you fire someone for exactly?
vm over samba? nested vms instead of converting the images properly? nigger rigging stuff instead of finding out why vmware isnt working right in the first place?

I cant say Id blame you though. I dont think nigger rigging on this level has any place in the work place.
I just wanted the files out of the vms and everything but a hand full of kvm machines to be completely deleted. No point in spending a day finding out why shit down work when youre throwing it away anyway.

>>61069330
>Just neck yourself already, you lost.
I see you subscribe to "If I say it enough it'll come true!"

No, you said there was no consumer use case for 10 Gbps. You were wrong. You're still wrong, and now you're just doubling down trying to appeal to authority.

>>61069208
Snort would be fine on an i3 if you don't have a massive session count. P2P might fuck with it a bit but it should be fine for home use.

>>61069326
You are seriously a retarded neckbeard that works in PC repair. I'm going to stop responding to you.

>>61069365
>Unless you need the maximum space or the data is expendable/backed up elsewhere, stay away from 5 and 6.
noted.
Im looking into getting more room for drives, when that happens I was leaning towards 10 anyway

While Im remembering this, is esata or esatap used anywhere still? A while back I as wanting an esatap card but I couldn't find anything from a reputable company

>>61069375
Usage case at least for me at this very moment would be offering secure encrypted cloud services to my entire family for their mobile devices as well as video and music streaming with no limitations really within reason. They can all store their files and music with me or watch content that I specifically host. I do this already with multiple households (plex) already. Running Nextcloud for my immediate family's needs now. No google botnet installed on any of our phones no spotify needed. Glorious.

>>61069345
40GbE was cutting cutting for enterprise and data center short run, core switching fabric, etc. It's not practical for this discussing because 24/40gbase-t is not slotted for consumer usage.

>>61069404
Is this your first day on 4chan because I'm pretty sure you're confusing him with me, the guy that thinks you're retarded.

>>61069430
Fastest residential I've seen offered is Comcast with 2 gigabit. You need specific hardware to make use of it as well of course.

>>61069367
Yeah basically. For what I do, that won't cut it in production for businesses. Can't be jumping through hoops because it wasn't implemented properly the first time.

It's perfectly fine at home where you don't have businesses relying on it, etc. When you're at home and you just wanna get er done, whatever works. That's what you did and I'd probably do it too if I didn't have the knowledge and experience that I have. That's part of the learning though.

Keep at it, you'll find better ways as you go and why certain things will work but are not ideal.

>>61069430
>It's not practical for this discussing because 24/40gbase-t is not slotted for consumer usage.
Look at this nigga doubling back from this shit, trying to act all smart when he got caught in his own bullshit.
>Have you not noticed that ethernet always increases by a factor of ten? 10, 100, 1000, 10000?
>Do you not understand that the components that make up all this technology scale in specific ways"

>>61069419
It's out there but I don't really see anyone use it. USB3 has kind of made it useless. USAP is basically makes SATA work nicely on USB3, so no need for an additional layer 1 interface.

>>61069456
and they hand off with an SFP+ connection anyway, not RJ-45. They provide a free SFP+ router which has 1GbE RJ-45 from there, but you're obviously limited to 1gbps from that point.

If you want to actually use the 2gbps (actually 2.2gbps provisioned) they require you to use your own hardware, which you're looking at, at least $700. Probably a bit more.

Good news is 2.5 and 5GbE is hitting the market this year and NICs and switches should run you under $200.

>>61069461
Yea, I agree with that.
I wouldnt say "not implemented right in the first place" though, the vmware machines were from years ago. I had been using virtualbox but quit that and started using kvm for hardware passthough. So implementing vmware on linux was never really the plan.

I feel like youve had to deal with this hack work form people before?

>>61069419
I use an eSATAp optical drive for my laptop here and there

>>61069469
Right, you got me. I've never seen it before and you are technically correct. Forgive me for not providing free /g/ college for every faggot /r/pcmasterrace user that thinks they understand enterprise and data center because they built a gaming rig. Nobody, and i mean nobody uses direct attach copper 40gbit in consumer. It was a density stepping stone before 10 and 100 gbase-t was ratified and implimented by the IEEE.

And you know why people use it only when necessary in enterprise? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with that scaling I was talking about.

Checkmate brainletta.

Can I use WiFi cable to connect my iPhone?

>Why bother colocating if you've got 10 Gbps to your house?

Backup-generators, A/C, business class internet, 24/7 on-demand on-hands maintenance.

There's more to colocation than fast internet.

File: redpark_iphone_serial_cable_db9_rj11.jpg (18KB, 196x197px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 196x197px

>>61069544
You sure can

>>61069509
I manage a team of 60 people currently, but have been a consultant for fortune 500's with 100s of IT employees. I've seen a lot of shit man, a lot of it is just learning. People make mistakes, I get that.

I fire people (or suggest they be fired) when you get neckbeards from /g/ that think they are right and do not see that, for the sake of brevity, you skip over in depth explanations of why you don't do X or Y, even though it is counter intuitive.

I've seen people nest VMs that have database stuff on them, and I rage.

>>61069530
>Trying to act right when they were wrong
Something wrong with you.

>And you know why people use it only when necessary in enterprise? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with that scaling I was talking about.
It has nothing to do with that. In reality it's because it's fucking expensive and cheaper to just team fiber. Good job trying to pretend you know what you're talking about though.

File: 20170616_143820.jpg (3MB, 4160x2080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2080px

>>61065879
I have 10gbe on my server rack the wd green drives with ssd read write cash can only handle 4-5 gbps, still 5x faster than 1gb Ethernet, used cisco 10gig optics are pretty cheap I can do a 35 foot fiber run for about 50 bux.

>>61069563
THANK YOU. These brainlettas think because they can come up with some normie consumer use for 10gbit wan connection, that it should be done.

>>61069579
That is my point idiot, direct attach copper and switching doesn't scale well technically or cost-wise.

>Trying to call someone out when their reading comprehension is non existent.

Good job trying to one-up me though.

>>61069576
Should make a thread with stories sometime, Id probably miss it though.

I started looking at iscsi. Is this a replacement for samba, ftp, or something else? is it like rsync(?) where it saves changes to a director but over a network instead?

>>61069582
Nice rack bro. You got your CCNP? Gotta get that CCDA and be a god that shitposts on /g/

>>61069199
The speed of his transfers' scaling is going to trickle down to a nothingness.

In 1987 720kb was a lot. (1000x) In 1997 700mb was a lot. (12x) In 2007 8.5gb was a lot. (6x) In 2017 50gb is a lot.
4k is about the native resolution of 35mm film. There simply isn't much video content out there that benefits from a higher res. It will be standard in 2027 and will fit easily in 100gb even as MPEG-4 rather than H.265.
Unless you're working with large scientific datasets on a high HPC-low supercomputing basis, or adhoc clustering for muh gamezzz like Sony failed to push with the Cell finally happens, you're simply not generating or manipulating enough data for anything over around 100mbit per user to be anything but an autism soother.

There is a consumer use for tunneling Displayport over cheaper cables with longer max distances, but rip that's 40Gbit not 10Ge packetlet territory. It's also most effectively circuit switched rather than packet switched.

>>61069624
iSCSI's basically like connecting your HDD over a network, SMB and FTP are for accessing files on a drive over a network.

>>61069624
No, it is a block level procotol for storage over ethernet. I was suggesting an architectural change, a bretty big one, but will serve you better in the long run. Consolidate your storage and boot VMs via iSCSI.

>>61069652
oh thats cool.
I don't want to keep going with the questions so Ill leave it at two more
can it be used to target a partition instead of the whole drive?
does it have exclusive read/write access or can the host computer still use the drive like normal

>>61069624
Can't really do storytime threads. I do work for US and Canadian defense contractors, so it's a bit risky.

One thing I will say for the coolness factor is that one of them does industrial 3D printing, so HUGE CAD files and shit. They 3D print parts for aerospace, aircraft, weapons, etc. Super cool shit but would go to jail for taking pictures.

Learn CAD, Solidworks, big money in that stuff.

>>61069654
Yea I like the sound of it as described in the post just above yours

>>61069676
Can't really do partitions, but you can divide up your storage into LUNs (think an array of disks, splitting them up into virtual disks) so that you can control how much space you give to each.

You can have multiple hosts/shared iSCSI but it is more complicated than what you're wanting it for. Those scenarios are special use cases.

File: 2017-06-25 00_45_44-.png (6KB, 297x103px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 297x103px

with 1gbps becoming more common it will happen soon, within 5 years probably.

>>61069642
cisco is meme tier. you might as well talk about getting your a+.

>>61069682
oh I didnt mean details about company secrets, I just meant stories about dealing with dumbasses doing stuff that slows down the operation like you had said running databases out of a vm

>>61069703
Everything in computing theory is based on a stack, each layer of a stack has a different function. SMB and FTP are high level protocols, iSCSI is a lower level protocol. Buddy above me described it eloquently.

I am not much of a teacher, but my work speaks for itself which is why I've gotten awesome jobs over the years.

>>61069719
I'm sure they have stories about the idiots who got their "tech" experience or papers from some military grant. Most of those fucks/jarheads can't do shit without a manual and a reach around.

>>61069253
>Changing out the cabling is cheaper than changing out gear

Since when is gear 10G?

>>61069712
Yea, I get that. There may be a time in the future that I would be in one of these special use scenarios and I like knowing multiple ways of doing thing so that I can choose the best one.

Well thanks for the info, iscsi has my attention right now, I like the idea of it

>>61069714
LOL

>What runs the internet?

CCIE and CCDA are literally the most respected certifications in the field. CCIEs could have no work experience or other education/certs and land 80k/yr starting at minimum.

Not sure if bait, or you're just butthurt that you failed the cisco netacad.

>>61069751
You'll have to read up on it (check out high availability methodologies for storage and virtualization). It's a lot to explain over 4chan.

>>61069736
Yeah, actually that is a lot of it. Respect to the forces, but the Oohrah mentality doesn't go over well in tech.

>>61069768
Yea I bet, Ill keep looking it up, thanks agian

>>61069719
I had one company (a well known one that everyone on this site uses) have another contractor, a pajeet, stick a USB drive box on the top of a 48u cabinet with a single disk passed thru to a VM that was mission critical. The power adapter was hanging free. I have a picture somewhere, I'll see if I can find it and post it.

>>61069803
How the fuck are these people even allowed to be near this stuff

>>61069623
>direct attach copper and switching doesn't scale well technically or cost-wise.
It's not that either. It's a chicken and egg thing. Nobody would implement copper when they already have fiber. And nobody would implement expensive copper when they could run more fiber lines for cheaper in the long run. Anyway, there are enough standards that aren't a multiple of ten that you were flatly wrong. Just own up to it.

File: 20140320_095138.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>61069841

File: 20140320_095146.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

>>61069841
>>61069989
It was an SSD apparently. This is about 5 years ago now.

>>61069989
Nice cable run through the drop ceiling too.

File: 20140315_221746.jpg (4MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x2322px

>>61069854
Leaving it out for the sake of the argument is not flatly wrong. Do you really think someone who manages a DC has never seen 25/40gbit? Piss off you pedantic neckbeard.

Next time I will be ultra specific and mention everything, no matter how irreverent to the point I was (correctly) making so I don't have to reply to inferior /g/tards.

Protip, people like you cap out as a sysadmin because of your bullshit. They don't get to move up and onto better things.

Pic related, purchased cash 3 months after taking on my last job.

>>61070015
Don't get me started. They were in an office building. Company leased another floor but the property management wouldn't let us run fiber down from 25th to 4th floor. So, what I did was run single mode to the window outside of this server room, drilled a hole in the window frame and fed it through. Went downstairs to the 4th floor and had one of my lackeys feed it down. We had that stand of fibre running down the outside of a 30 floor office tower for a week, working perfectly btw, and the property management finally gave into me.

File: yourpost.jpg (66KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x1280px

>>61069854
Pic related, it's your attitude.