By remote NAS I was meaning one run by oneself at another remote location, following on from iMav's example.
Imav is a special use case.
Besides the fact that most people couldn't do what he's doing, nor do they have a use for it, notice that he only has gigabit at home. That tells me he's probably not really stressing that 2.5 internet and could get away just fine with a slower speed.
Where he's getting the most from that is on the upload side.
Most connections, including his are asymmetrical, faster download than upload. He'd only lose a little speed going down to a symmetrical gigabit connection (1gig up, 1gig down) as proven by the 1226 speed on his upload speed.
If the ISPs in France offering 8Gbps/1Gbps balks at use cases appropriate for that speed it seems a bit pointless to even have the plans and infrastructure in place :p I'd be more interested in anecdotes from such customers though.
It is pointless.
There's very little you can do with 1Gbit connection (or an 8Gbit) that I can't do with a 300Mbit connection, other than super fast upload or download. The internet is built for slower speeds in mind in order to reach the most people.
Not to mention the fact that servers handle multiple people so you only get a fraction of the connection, streaming is a set bit rate (and almost always throttled to avoid piracy), gaming is focused on ping and lowest common denominator in order to reach the most people. Basically, the only
legal use that can take advantage is quite limited because there's just simply so little capability on server side to take advantage of it and that is by design because they don't want to have to support it (bandwidth and storage is expensive). For most people, unless you're uploading to Youtube/Tik Tock there's little sense. Even remote archiving is easily done at slower speeds, like with Imav since it can sync while you sleep. I suspect he may be using it as a VPN and not as a sync tool, but he could and it would work just as fast but with a slower connection however it would however require file storage at each end (personally I prefer this as it serves as a backup as well).
These speeds are a marketing ploy.
Provided you have a fast enough connection, Google isn't going to load faster, your videos will not play faster, your game will not have a higher FPS. They don't care if it's useful, they only care about getting your money and most people don't have enough of an understanding of computers, let alone how the internet actually works. They just see bigger/faster/shiny.
There are a decent number of home users who've begun running SFP+ hardware in the past few years who've reported temps and it's manageable, from NICs to switches. Maybe if one were running 10Gbase-T it'd be more a concern, which also consumes more power. SFP+ hardware has become fairly affordable, compared to even 2.5/5GbE, in part from the availability of used hardware but also even some new
managed switches.
I wasn't referring to heat at your home,
One or two is one thing, not a facility full of it, some 10Gbit switches are 200 watts alone, multiply that by 100 for a host and it becomes a considerable amount of heat to deal with. If they don't need it, they'd rather not deal with it. Heat is a major issue at hosts and the fast connection just isn't as necessary as people think and when it is needed, it's used to serve multiple people, not just a super fast connection to a single person.
Yes, home users are using it for their home networks, I have some 2.5 and SFP, that doesn't mean I need to stream 8k from my home server to my cell phone in the field or send a 3TB file to my office. Most people with lots of data want fast ethernet, they don't need fast internet. Frankly, most people with a connection over 100Mbit have more bandwidth than they need on the download side. Upload, being asymmetrical and most are well under 20Mbit could still be better, but again, most people simply are not uploading enough to really matter anyhow.
I've restored from my backups a number of times that have saved me from things (including ****ty Windows updates) that I strongly disagree about their usefulness. I verify all my backups and have never had an issue in years across multiple systems.
Everyone who believes in images says that, it's always worked for them.
Many of us against them used to say the same thing, care to guess what changed?
Even when an image works there's a whole lot of reasons you really shouldn't, particularly on a desktop.