Data Centers? (Yes or No Poll)

[Astora]

This here is not ACCEPTABLE, we need a better option...

They're giving us the best option; there is nothing better. They are limited to how fast data can travel between two points and how many places it has to connect through to accomplish that. The best way to reduce the time it takes to get from point A to point B is by reducing the distance between the two points, plain and simple. This is why regional servers make complete sense.

The option isn't forced, it's there if people want to have lower latency, which some highly value.

I don't think its impossible aspecially with new IEEE 802.3 standards. It offers 100Gbps compatibility and soon enough 1TB.

The IEEE 802.3 standard is aimed at data transfer rates in a LAN environment and will do nothing to improve latency with communications with other countries.

[Meier]

They're giving us the best option; there is nothing better. They are limited to how fast data can travel between two points and how many places it has to connect through to accomplish that. The best way to reduce the time it takes to get from point A to point B is by reducing the distance between the two points, plain and simple. This is why regional servers make complete sense.

The option isn't forced, it's there if people want to have lower latency, which some highly value.



The IEEE 802.3 standard is aimed at data transfer rates in a LAN environment and will do nothing to improve latency with communications with other countries.

I don’t see what you don’t understand ieee standard are worldwide when it comes to network, it is not just limited to country based. Network speed via its satellite based from JP server sync in japan to na servers in CA, they all utilize fiber network rather its trans-oceanic cable or satellite uplink. The introduction to new standard of greater throughput fuels that growth of uplink when it comes to data and terminals. IEEE standards doesn’t just bring out new cable set up, but new hard to go with it, and its not like japan is being left out of the loop, it is why it’s called a standard.

[Wolfie]

I don’t see what you don’t understand ieee standard are worldwide when it comes to network, it is not just limited to country based. Network speed via its satellite based from JP server sync in japan to na servers in CA, they all utilize fiber network rather its trans-oceanic cable or satellite uplink. The introduction to new standard of greater throughput fuels that growth of uplink when it comes to data and terminals. IEEE standards doesn’t just bring out new cable set up, but new hard to go with it, and its not like japan is being left out of the loop, it is why it’s called a standard.

I don't think you understand how this stuff works.

99% of all intercontinental communications on planet Earth go across these transoceanic cables. These cables aren't IEEE 802.3 compliant, the pipelines handle terabits of data per second. These are the highest quality fiber optic cables we have in the world.

But each hop between nodes, and each meter traveled across these cables takes time my friend. As of right now in the human world, there is no faster way to send data to another continent than through these cables. The IEEE 802.3 standard refers to copper and short range fiber optic cables, which have absolutely zero bearing on international communication lines.

[Rannie]

I don't think you understand how this stuff works.

99% of all intercontinental communications on planet Earth go across these transoceanic cables. These cables aren't IEEE 802.3 compliant, the pipelines handle terabits of data per second. These are the highest quality fiber optic cables we have in the world.

But each hop between nodes, and each meter traveled across these cables takes time my friend. As of right now in the human world, there is no faster way to send data to another continent than through these cables. The IEEE 802.3 standard refers to copper and short range fiber optic cables, which have absolutely zero bearing on international communication lines.

I'd just like to say something as well the longer the cable the less data it retains. Point in case you get a better connection in a 25 ft ethernet cable than you do a 100 ft one and even better connection with an even shorter cable so with the more hops you have to do between servers the less latency and more packet loss you get and or even can have data corruption (I knew that one day working for philips/magnavox would work out damn near gave me a headache the first three days of training though lol)

[Astora]

I don’t see what you don’t understand ieee standard are worldwide when it comes to network, it is not just limited to country based. Network speed via its satellite based from JP server sync in japan to na servers in CA, they all utilize fiber network rather its trans-oceanic cable or satellite uplink. The introduction to new standard of greater throughput fuels that growth of uplink when it comes to data and terminals. IEEE standards doesn’t just bring out new cable set up, but new hard to go with it, and its not like japan is being left out of the loop, it is why it’s called a standard.

I didn't say IEEE standards aren't worldwide, I simply stated that the performance gains from the IEEE standard revision will largely benefit transfer speeds between systems on a LAN.

I'll put it into perspective. Say we have a fiber optic line straight from Tokyo to Los Angeles. Say we have perfect conditions to run data through it. In this perfect, never-going-happen, situation, it'll take the packet 41ms to travel that distance. Now add in the time it takes the server to process and send out the packet. Then add in all of the different routing that needs to happen before it even leaves Tokyo. Now add in some more routing before it even gets to you from your ISP. Now add in the time it takes to process and render the information on the screen.

All of it adds up and this doesn't even include the callbacks and packet loss that happen. No change in IEEE standard is going to reduce this amount of time significantly.