Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RogerMexico t1_ittcs0e wrote

TLDR: it didn’t transfer the entire internet, it actually transferred 1.84 petabits in a synthetic test, which is just 230 TBs.

200

deputytech t1_ittd7nj wrote

Otherwise known as my buddy Jerry’s porn collection.

132

Badtrainwreck t1_ittdugb wrote

Only 230TB? Oh too be young again

43

ask_me_about_my_band t1_itty7ez wrote

I go through hard drives like they were packs of cigarettes.

8

nzodd t1_itw2tnw wrote

all those linux ISOs aren't going to download themselves

1

ArchyModge t1_itte8yn wrote

The article never claimed to transfer the entire internet. It just said it transferred data equivalent to the average internet traffic per second.

47

RogerMexico t1_itth7os wrote

Right, I should probably reword it but I'll leave my original comment up.

Point is that the that's there's no practical way to get all of the internet into that chip. This is a synthetic test and there is no way to collect all of the world's internet traffic with a chip like this, which is what I believe the title is provoking.

It's kind of like saying a 12" pipe transferred all of Niagara Fall's water, when it really just shot out a gallon of water at supersonic speeds for a split second.

The title really should say something like: "A single chip has managed to transfer data at a rate equivalent to the entire internet's traffic in a single second"

22

bsloss t1_itw16aq wrote

This isn’t really related to the main conversation, but shoving water through a pipe at ridiculously high speeds and pressures actually has several interesting problems which essentially limit the maximum amount of water that can go through a pipe per second. https://what-if.xkcd.com/147/

1

Mupp99 t1_itx15n6 wrote

The way it said transfer something in a second implied a fixed amount of data in a second rather than matching a speed for a second.

0

ArchyModge t1_itx2fe8 wrote

The title is stupid. They should’ve said something like “A single chip and fiber optic cable transferred the equivalent of the internet’s traffic”.

Traffic is a rate (data/second) so saying it was done “in a second” is misleading, confusing and redundant.

4

Cute_Suggestion_598 t1_itthpwd wrote

Makes me wonder just what kind of data array they had that could read that much data in one second.

10

465sdgf t1_ittu0lb wrote

The title says "entire internet's traffic" not the entire internet.

The title is just as short of a TL;DR and for this post is accurate.

4

derprondo t1_itw6r9v wrote

No mention of what really matters, packets per second. They could have been slinging 1TB packets.

3

Agent_Paul_UIU t1_itwqifz wrote

Oh. I thought for a sec, that chip saw a lot of porn. Nevermind.

3

RogerMexico t1_itxawci wrote

This just made me question the notion that all internet traffic is just 1.8Pbps (200 TB per second). Maybe that’s just the non-porn traffic.

3

rSpinxr t1_ittndy7 wrote

Wait, you mean it didn't magically transmit all the data from all over the connected world to one location in an instant?

/s

2

Current_Individual47 t1_itukld5 wrote

1.84 PB != 230 TB

−2

Nahvec t1_itulojf wrote

technically true, but like they said 1.84 Pb = 230 TB

5

jbman42 t1_itxank3 wrote

1.84 petabits/second - speed

230 terabytes - total size of the experiment

Basically they transferred it all in a fraction of a second, so the title shouldn't say (in a single second) because it's inaccurate, but it's otherwise correct.

3