Message boards :
Technical News :
Bit Ceiling (Oct 08 2008)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
We are paying a tiny fraction for the current 1Gbit than we were paying for the previous 100Mbit connection Well...... I just sent off an email to Hyperlink Technologies asking if they would be interested in donating a point to point link to the project..... My request will probably be filed away in the proverbial round file, but I had to ask........ "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
I just got an automated response from Hyperlink,,,,,, So at least I know my email got through. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
KyleFL Send message Joined: 20 May 99 Posts: 17 Credit: 2,332,249 RAC: 0 |
It should be quite easy to setup an WLAN Link from top of the hill to the central campus. I have done such a link @ with 2 Linksys WAP54G and it was quite easy. The usable bandwith was ~20MBit, but now with the new Draft-N WLAN Hardware, that should be 5-8times faster. That additional bandwith does come very cheap and without long installation issues. Another idea would be to check if it would be possible to use the powerline for network transfers. If seen it work in two houses now -- just plug in the powerline adapter and you get up to 80MBits. I don´t know how the central campus and the lab on the hill are connected -- if the lab uses the same powerlines then the campus. But maybe it would be worth a closer look. Cu KyleFL If the whole thing seems impossible, just start with that step that gives the least resistance. If you get an additional hardware-link to central campus, many new paths will open with that possiblity :) |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
It should be quite easy to setup an WLAN Link from top of the hill to the central campus. They need 1000 megabits (1 gigabit) and probably more than a mile with good link budgets. In other words, something better than draft-N. Some sort of wireless is still probably the better option. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
It should be quite easy to setup an WLAN Link from top of the hill to the central campus. Well, I pray that Hyperlink will respond to my request........ And even if they decline to donate, at least maybe they will offer a solution and then we can work with that....... "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
KyleFL Send message Joined: 20 May 99 Posts: 17 Credit: 2,332,249 RAC: 0 |
It should be quite easy to setup an WLAN Link from top of the hill to the central campus. Yes -- but I thought everything that can give additional bandwith is better than not doing anything! So an additional bandwith of ~100MBit would still double the actual link. |
PhonAcq Send message Joined: 14 Apr 01 Posts: 1656 Credit: 30,658,217 RAC: 1 |
I think Jon's idea is the most possible solution to distributing the back-end workload. It's worth pursuing, at least academically, but my mind reels thinking about the minor issues, at least in our case, that may make such an endeavour ultimately not worth it (at the moment). The devil is in the details. To restart this thread (a bit), has anyone thought that the first step might be to set up a stand alone server at Berkeley to simulate the distributed backbone idea? A sort of beta project. There seems to be some extra computer hardware there, albeit not suitable to be part of the central cluster. If one could be set up and made useful (actually use it in production on a limited subset of data, as described below), it might find a home at a distributed site (NCU in the example below) since the start-up costs would be minimized and the probability of success maximized. In addition to potentially improving the system in the short term, the lessons learned might accelerate the DT idea, when future hardware donations or partners are available. Before the naysayers (NL) get too excited, everyone already knows that this would take resources. Resource allocation is for the staff to decide in the end and is not worth arguing here. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
It should be quite easy to setup an WLAN Link from top of the hill to the central campus. Given that they need to cover at least a mile, and that I'd expect other devices on the air in the 2.4 GHz band at both ends, I probably would not try to do 802.11a/b/g or draft-N. I'd worry about reliability issues with other occupants on those frequencies. That's a part of the "link budget" -- you want the signal at both ends to be above the likely noise floor. You've also got path loss, which will vary with weather. ... and we don't know for sure where they'd be able to connect at faster than 100 megabits (Matt said it'd mean replacing routers at both ends, so to save the cost of another router we need to bring the signal to the right place). That's why I said some kind of wireless would be good, but not necessarily consumer level gadgets with better antennas. Whatever is offered also should be maintainable: anything we'd kluge together is likely to require repair from time to time. ... and if we can get a donation, we might as well go for something that does the whole job, and is built for the task. I haven't found pricing, but Bridgewave is one of the vendors that makes the right kind of stuff. On the 80GHz band, they're talking about six miles -- and it would not have to beat out somebody's cordless phone. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
I think Jon's idea is the most possible solution to distributing the back-end workload. It's worth pursuing, at least academically, but my mind reels thinking about the minor issues, at least in our case, that may make such an endeavour ultimately not worth it (at the moment). The devil is in the details. Probably the best place to start is to look at the other projects that have distributed their servers to various campuses. SETI would not be the first. I think CPDN either did, or does currently. It'd be interesting to learn what they found as to advantages and problems. |
Mumps [MM] Send message Joined: 11 Feb 08 Posts: 4454 Credit: 100,893,853 RAC: 30 |
I think Jon's idea is the most possible solution to distributing the back-end workload. It's worth pursuing, at least academically, but my mind reels thinking about the minor issues, at least in our case, that may make such an endeavour ultimately not worth it (at the moment). The devil is in the details. If I recall correctly, Einstein also has a partially distributed distribution system. :-) |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
I seem to remember that CPDN actually lost one of their partners at some point, which was a real problem. Seems the upload URL is supplied with the WU, and not only did the server disappear, but it disappeared from DNS and they had trouble getting something into their DNS pointed to a valid server. For CPDN, since work units run so long, it takes a year to collect the answers. The solution of course is to keep all of the upload DNS names under the control of the project, and put in the right A records or CNAMEs. ... but it's just one of the issues when you start trying to spread the load. |
Jon Golding Send message Joined: 20 Apr 00 Posts: 105 Credit: 841,861 RAC: 0 |
On the subject of distributed servers, is anyone here in contact with the developers at CPDN or Einstein? They should be brought into this discussion (perhaps in a separate thread of its own). |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
On the subject of distributed servers, is anyone here in contact with the developers at CPDN or Einstein? They should be brought into this discussion (perhaps in a separate thread of its own). I believe that the BOINC project community is as vital as this one (if a bit smaller). This isn't going to happen very fast: SETI@Home is about three very busy staffers, and that's about it. Doing this is yet another task added to an already very busy queue. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
Before the naysayers (NL) get too excited. I'm not "excited" I'm realistic. You and I are not the ones doing the work, and I'm reluctant to add to someone elses' workload when they are not my employee. So it's fun to play armchair quarterback, but unless we specifically fund a project like this, what we're really doing is only going to happen if the people who work in the lab at Berkeley decide to divert resources to that idea. |
Jon Golding Send message Joined: 20 Apr 00 Posts: 105 Credit: 841,861 RAC: 0 |
You and I are not the ones doing the work, and I'm reluctant to add to someone elses' workload when they are not my employee. I'm sorry, Ned, but I fully support PhonAcq on this one. Admittedly, I don't have either the technical skill nor the time to make any of this happen, so I certainly fall into your "armchair quarterback" category. However, would we be adding to the Berkeley staff workload by asking experts that already use distributed servers for other projects within the BOINC community to come up with viable suggestions for how SETI could also do this? Moreover, in conjunction with the advice from other BOINC projects, we have a vast resource of professional programmers within the SETI community who might enjoy the challenge of adapting the open source software to create a viable distributed server platform (take Lunatics, for example). None of this requires the day-to-day input from the SETI staff. They'd obviously need to be involved in initial discussions about what they wanted and to lay down ground rules, but after that they'd just require a progress update from time to time, to ensure that any development was still compatible with their requirements. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
You and I are not the ones doing the work, and I'm reluctant to add to someone elses' workload when they are not my employee. And therein lies the problem. You're not adding to the Berkeley staff workload because the Berkeley staff does not help out with SETI@Home chores. Also, having plenty of experience designing projects, you're always bound to run into unforeseen problems and will need input from somebody "in the know" and as such will be constantly questioning Matt or Eric or whoever for more input. It would be much more than just laying the ground rules and then off you go. The software programmers would have to have intimate knowledge of the system, and unless its documented 100%, and very clearly, this is where asking Matt or Eric for clarification will come in on a constant basis to ensure that it works correctly - then there's the field test and the tweaking and the rewriting; rinse, lather, repeat until completed (and no project is ever complete, there's always tweak that need to be added later). I'm not trying to discourage this in any way, though I know some of you are going to take it that way. I just don't think you guys fully realize the scope of what you want to do, and I base this opinion that you guys don't know upon the fact that, in theory, you state that minimal work will be required by the guys on campus - but they are the ones that would need to be integral to the entire project/idea. I honestly hope that something can be done to load balance the servers, and I hope you guys keep brainstorming ideas, but just realize that about anything you come up with is going to require lots of involvement from an already busy staff who may not be able to devote the time to implement the idea you come up with. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
You and I are not the ones doing the work, and I'm reluctant to add to someone elses' workload when they are not my employee. ... and you certainly may support PhonAcq. I actually think this is a very good idea. What I'm trying to point out is, no matter who sits back and who does the initial footwork, at some point, Matt, Jeff and Eric will have to do the work. If they're building a server to ship off to some other site, and configuring it, plus the politics (for lack of a better term) of having another organization take care of that server, they're the ones that have to do it. I even agree that once it's deployed, there isn't that much operational work to continue operating that way. It even occurred to me that a "burn in" period with the "remote" server in a different building on campus would be a great idea -- far enough that they can't just walk into the lab and kick it, and close enough that they can go there if needed. I'm only saying that no matter how good an idea is, we have to realize that the available resources are pretty well fully allocated, and if this would take 20 man-hours to set up, that's 20 man-hours that have to come from something else (that we probably want). I also suspect that if they had a server to ship off someplace else that they could probably gain the same boosts in performance keeping it at the lab, but that's a different discussion. I'm not saying that it should not be suggested, just that we need to be realistic -- if it happens, it won't happen fast, and there isn't much we can do from the outside to rush it along. I also think there is this goofy perception that the SETI servers need 99.999% reliability, when something in the high 80% range really is good enough. -- Ned |
doublechaz Send message Joined: 17 Nov 00 Posts: 89 Credit: 76,455,865 RAC: 735 |
Is it the fibre itself that is 100Mbit or is it the interfaces in the routers that are limited? I thought you could run Gbit that far over fibre with the correct WICs in the routers. Certainly it is multimode fibre to go that far. I work at a wireless ISP, so I don't know fibre that well. As to a wireless link you could use a couple RouterBoards from MikroTik with a pair of wireless A cards at each end. Then teach it to use the Nstream Dual protocol instead of 802.11 and you could get something like 40Mbit full duplex. That wouldn't cost much. I think we could raise donations for the couple thousand it would take. I can contribute technical skill on the RouterBoard setup if there is interest. |
Bounce Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 66 Credit: 5,604,569 RAC: 0 |
long distances (iirc beyond 2 Km) = single mode fibre short haul = multi mode fibre |
piper69 Send message Joined: 25 Sep 08 Posts: 49 Credit: 3,042,244 RAC: 0 |
the best solution to this is still the 1gb conn. faster speed . easyer to maintain. reduced real workhours |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.