Maybe it's all about sufficient bandwidth - now that it's ubiquitous, latency tends to be the dominant concern?
Latency is well defined and nobody is quibbling on that.
A cat video will start displaying much sooner with 1 Mbps of bandwidth compared to 100 Kbps:
> taking a comparatively short time
* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fast § 3(a)(2)
> done in comparatively little time; taking a comparatively short time: fast work.
* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fast § 2
So an online experiences happens sooner (=faster-in-time) with more bandwidth.
So basically: Lower latency, lower bandwidth?
No: DAC and (MMF/SMF) fibre will (in this example) both give you 10Gbps.
This specifically mentions the 7130 model, which is a specialized bit of kit, and which Arista advertises for (amongst other things):
> Arista's 7130 applications simplify and transform network infrastructure, and are targeted for use cases including ultra-low latency exchange trading, accurate and lossless network visibility, and providing vendor or broker based shared services. They enable a complete lifecycle of packet replication, multiplexing, filtering, timestamping, aggregation and capture.
* https://www.arista.com/en/products/7130-applications
It is advertised as a "Layer 1" device and has a user-programmable FPGA. Some pre-built applications are: "MetaWatch: Market data & packet capture, Regulatory compliance (MiFID II - RTS 25)", "MetaMux: Market data fan-out and data aggregation for order entry at nanosecond levels", "MultiAccess: Supporting Colo deployments with multiple concurrent exchange connection", "ExchangeApp: Increase exchange fairness, Maintain trade order based on edge timestamps".
Latency matters (and may even be regulated) in some of these use cases.
The differing slope of the lines is due to velocity factor in the cable. The speed of light in vacuum is much faster than in other media. And the lines diverge the longer you make them.
> The low-latency of Arista switches has made them prevalent in high-frequency trading environments, such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange[50] (largest U.S. options exchange) and RBC Capital Markets.[51] As of October 2009, one third of its customers were big Wall Street firms.[52]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arista_Networks
They've since expanded into more areas, and are said to be fairly popular with hyper-scalers. Often recommended in forums like /r/networking (support is well-regarded).
One of the co-founders is Andy Bechtolsheim, also a co-founder of Sun, and who wrote Brin and Page one of the earliest cheques to fund Google:
Which is why you get network topologies other than 'just' fat tree in HPC networks:
* https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/07/15/super-connecting-the-supe...
Try running Cat cables on powerlines like Aerial Fibre
But I think I understand what you mean.
The shape of individual EM waveforms is no longer relevant instead there are just buckets of got some or not.
Not enough to matter in this comparison, but i thought I should mention it.
MadVikingGod•9h ago
What I would actually like to see is how this performs in a more real world situation. Like does this increase line error rates, causing the transport or application to have to resend at a higher rate, which would erase all savings by having lower latency. Also if they are really signaling these in the multi GHz are these passive cables acting like antenna, and having a cabinet full of them just killing itself on crosstalk?
laurencerowe•8h ago
Surely resignaling should be the fixed cost they calculate at about 1ns? Why does it also incur a 0.4ns/m cost?
cenamus•8h ago
Speed of electricity in wire should be pretty close to c (at least the front)
b3orn•8h ago
Sesse__•8h ago
EM signals move at about 0,66c in fiber, and about 0,98c in copper.
BenjiWiebe•3h ago
The insulation slows it down.
GuB-42•8h ago
c is the speed of light in a vacuum, but it is not really about light, it is a property of spacetime itself, and light just happens to be carried by a massless particle, which, according to Einstein's equations, make it go at c (when undisturbed by the medium). Gravity also goes at c.
bigfishrunning•7h ago
Eldt•7h ago
Sniffnoy•1h ago
(Physicists will in fact use the c=1 convention when keeping track of the distinction between distance units and time units is not important. A related convention is hbar=1.)
You can tell that c is fundamental, rather than just a property of light, from how it appears in the equations for Lorentz boosts (length contraction and time dilation).
myself248•8h ago
This is why point-to-point microwave links took over the HFT market -- they're covering miles with free space, not fiber.
jcims•6h ago
cycomanic•6h ago
laurencerowe•8h ago
It seems there is quite a wide range for different types of cables so some will be faster and others slower than optical fibre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor
But the resignalling must surely be unrelated?
throw0101b•1h ago
Obligatory Adm. Grace Hopper nanosecond reference:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=40m10s
Palomides•8h ago
p_l•8h ago
somanyphotons•7h ago
(My naive view is that they're both 'just copper'?)
kijiki•7h ago
Faster parallel DACs require more pairs of coax, and thus are thicker and more expensive.
tcdent•8h ago
sophacles•5h ago
Hilift•8h ago
bhaney•7h ago
Especially since physics imposes a ~1.67ns/m penalty on fiber. The best-case inverse speed of light in copper is ~3.3ns/m, while it's ~5ns/m in fiber optics.
kazinator•1h ago
Look at the graphs. The fiber has a higher slope; each meter adds more latency than a meter of copper.
This is simply due to the speed of electromagnetic wave propgation in the different media.
https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/16438...
Both the propagation of light in fiber and signal propagation in copper are much slower than the speed of lightin vaccuum, but they are not equal.