Download speeds

  • Thread starter NetMage
  • Start date
  • #26
Mech_Engineer
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,572
172
I had a thought-process on the issue trying to figure out why we would want more than, say, 50 MB/sec (hard drive speed)...
For what it's worth, 50MB/s is pretty low for standard hard drive speeds these days. Many mainstream drives are capable of 100MB/s (take for example this http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/seagate_barracuda_720012_1tb").

My Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB drive clocks in at about 80MB/s, and it only costs $60 these days...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
2,685
22
What about OS limiting on the hard drives?

I run 5 hard drives in total and they are all at least 50mb/s. However, when I copy to/from them I only get 2 - 20mb/s with windows (and ubuntu).

Having a download speed greater than 30mb/s wouldn't make sense unless you are directly streaming (without buffer).

EDIT: I'm speaking in regards to a home pc. Most people don't have server banks and hard drive racks in their spare room.
 
  • #29
20
0
So, you are telling me that if a quite wealthy and generous individual wanted to, they could start a company that could mass produce 10Terabit/s download speeds?
Sure.
Not really, unless that person is going to revamp the internet for the entire world. It doesn't matter if you have a 1000 Tb/s connection if that computer you're download from in on 56k. Your connection, the connection of the target server, and all the hops in between would have to support 10 Tb/s to actually see those speeds in the real world.
 
  • #30
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
I had a thought-process on the issue trying to figure out why we would want more than, say, 50 MB/sec (hard drive speed)...

First, I'd start by thinking about what the end-use of a computer is in basic terms (again, we're talking about household use). The purpose is to display a series of ~60fps images in the screen in response to inputs...sometimes accompanied by sound. Whether that's a game, a video clip or just the response-rate of a text editor, that's the data that a computer outputs. The limit I see on usefulness is the data throughput required for that - which is roughly 5 MB/sec, blu-ray data speed. Nothing a network can do faster than that can have an immediate impact on the user.

Taking that further, right now companies are trying to bring the processing back to their servers, allowing only a remote UI, which protects the program and enables a pay-as-you-go model. With the above throughput, they could apply that to virtually anything, including video games: you could play a graphically intense video game without much of a processor if you had a fast internet connection and the remote server provided the processing power, only sending back the pictures. Still, no need for more than 5 MB/sec.

Now there are limited examples where people might want more processed faster, such as with video editing or in my case, astrophotography image enhancement (this takes a surprising amount of resources, on par with video editing). I suppose it would be cool to edit a full-length blu-ray quality video and have it render in three seconds, sending it to a remote company and back. But I'm not sure companies are going to want to use their processing power in that way....and we still come back to the hard drive limitation of ~50 MB/sec.
My thoughts are that a high def display rate (times two or three), and eventually a 3D gaming display rate, is the upper limit of usefulness for one person, not necessarily the storage rate. Cheap storage can already go ~200MB/sec and in a few years it will likely be close to todays memory I/O rates. But I don't see the hard requirement for sending that entire rendered full length two hour video around in 3 seconds when it is impossible to view it or even browse through it in 3s; instead just stream it down on demand, as in Video on Demand with TV or You Tube video on the net. Sure, if the pipe is cheap enough go ahead and send it in 3s when the end user can handle it, but it's not necessary. A low def TV channel is 6MHz, and last mile cable/fiber providers simultaneously send several hundred TV channels (one way) down my pipe (plus high speed net) allowing me to instantaneously choose (via a ~tuner) which one (or two) of those I want to view/record. Beyond those ~500 channels however, they've chosen to go with video on demand - streaming what the user wants on demand over a single channel.
 
  • #31
2,017
85
Will we be able to clog 1000Tb/s tubes?
 
  • #32
98
0
Well, I'm enjoying all the posts on here so far and im learning quite a bit. I like to look at hypothetical situations so that I can understand what is possible, but at the same to I want to look at practical situations because I live in an area that gets decent internet...like 1MB/s download speeds on a pretty good day, however it disconnects quite often. I am trying to find a way to get my internet to get maybe 5 MB/s or at least better than what I am getting now, while keeping my ping around 100ms or so. Ideas?
 
  • #33
98
0
Say, I piece together several hard drives to give myself more bandwidth, how would I connect it through my ISP, or would I even be able to do that. My ISP is a wireless tower that gives about 1MB/s downloads or they say more, but ive never experienced it. N then is there any other way to increase speed of the net? Or am I strictly going to be stuck with whatever ISP is available to me. Because its either satellite or this wireless network, which is much better than satellite for gaming etc.
 
  • #34
2,685
22
Simply adding hard drives doesn't give you extra bandwidth.

You can only get what the ISP gives you. If their maximum is 1mb/s, then there is nothing you personally can do to improve that.
 
  • #35
98
0
Hm, so there really is no good solution to my problem? :( lol
 
  • #36
2,017
85
Buy more internet...
 
  • #37
98
0
My ISP is a small small company, I dont think they offer bigger bandwidths than what we get already.
 
  • #38
98
0
I could be wrong though...
 
  • #39
98
0
Hm, could someone break down the cost estimation for each part of starting a high speed internet service? What is so costly about doing this? What makes increasing bandwidths more expensive? What all would I need as far as the components to supply 1 home with a wireless broadband at maybe 8 Mbps or so??
 
  • #40
2,685
22
Netmage, unless you are rather wealthy, it isn't going to happen.

The equipment alone will set you back quite a bit.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on having your own internet service. If you can't get it cheaply from a local service, I can guarantee you that it can't be done cheaply by yourself.
 

Related Threads on Download speeds

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
13K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top