I get 8MB/S and that's plenty. Everything can be streamed now so download times are irrelevant.
4k netflix hdr can get up to 40mbit though, if you have 2 of those streams, that could choke though rarely since there's a buffer.And why would I want to pretend to watch two 4k streams at once? If I'm not really watching they can be lower res, if I am watching there would be only one. This is ignoring the fact that there's not a 4k capable screen in my house. No netflix either...
The real question is: How much internet do we actually need?
4k bluray quality is ~100mbit peaks
8k, we probably need at least 3x that, 300mbit peaks to make it worthwhile.
8k youtube is, well it's pretty crummy, very low bitrate (for 8k).
You need way more than nvme if it's 8Gbit non sequential.
Even 3d cache can't handle that. you'd need ram drives.
Tp4 thinks ~300mbps , 37.5 Megabyte/second, is about as fast as any net service ever get up to.
So, any more, won't really improve real world usage much.
Thoughts?Show Image(https://i.imgur.com/uqAeXBu.gif)
8Gbps = 1000MBps according to multiple calculations I've seen. CrystalDiskMark benchmarks for various NVMe drives show there are models available that can handle that even for random writes.
Try 2000 torrent connections at even 80MB/s , it "often" chokes.
Try 2000 torrent connections at even 80MB/s , it "often" chokes.
Torrents are highly fragmented downloads tbf but I'd be curious about tests with them on NVMe as the random write benchmarks I saw were with a queue depth of 32 and multi-threaded. What NVMe have you tried with torrents btw?
Seems like it'd also be pretty wide ranging to benchmark torrents given the variability in the seeder's connection speeds themselves, apart from one's own connection speed.
Those are just benchmarks Coreda, Try 2000 torrent connections at even 80MB/s , it "often" chokes.
For things like regular, full drive data backups to a remote NAS having particularly fast uploads would be a great help. Kind of infeasible otherwise given the time it'd take for users with a lot of data, which is why some just sneakernet a drive instead (at the downside of not keeping a more up-to-date version).
I think your ISP and your host would have something to say about that.
Besides the amount of power and heat 10+Gbit requires/puts out...
And there's no need for regular, full disk backups anyhow, that's just an abuse of resources (not to mention risky).
I can't tell you how many full disk image backups I've seen that didn't boot. Sure, they (usually) work on the same system using the same parts, but what happens when a drive fails and you buy a bigger, faster one, or change formats (sata to nvme), or heaven forbid you changed the motherboard.
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.
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 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 newI wasn't referring to heat at your home,
managed switches.
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.
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.
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?
A single 2.5g outside connection to a file server is faster than any drive will ever write, we'll probably never need 2.5g for internal distribution.
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.
I don't think most people even need fast ethernet,Never say never but not any time soon and our robot overlords may need more.
A single 2.5g outside connection to a file server is faster than any drive will ever write, we'll probably never need 2.5g for internal distribution..
We're at a physical limit in terms of useful consumption (bandwidth) for Hughmahns.
It wasn't about most people though nor even specifically iMav since I've seen such setups by users in places where the speeds are high enough and affordable that it's feasible, usually housed by family/friends. No third-party host as some theorectical bottleneck and with infrastructure that supports it. There are specific scenarios where higher speeds would be beneficial and not (currently) an average use case.
ALL of it, okay tp? I need ALL of it.
Currently using 1/1gbit fiber, and I really love it. There's almost no difference in price between the tiers so I took the biggest damn one.
I will say, though, that the only place I can really saturate the line is through Steam.ALL of it, okay tp? I need ALL of it.
Currently using 1/1gbit fiber, and I really love it. There's almost no difference in price between the tiers so I took the biggest damn one.
2 much p0wr for 1 person to handle.