<Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>

"Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
ones I already taught it."

<And another colleague from around the millennium, now a
professional photographer taking lots of photos and expecting
them to be automatically backed up the cloud, but yesterday spots this
message>

"500k files, 3TB (13TB completed) 2.7yrs remaining"
--
Roland Perry

On 16/12/2023 10:53, Roland Perry wrote:
> <Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>
>
> "Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
> said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
> phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
> finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
> thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
> ones I already taught it."

Should have used Apple!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> <Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>
>
> "Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
> said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
> phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
> finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
> thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
> ones I already taught it."
>
> <And another colleague from around the millennium, now a
> professional photographer taking lots of photos and expecting
> them to be automatically backed up the cloud, but yesterday spots this
> message>
>
> "500k files, 3TB (13TB completed) 2.7yrs remaining"

This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
tractable.

In message <ulk4v5$2dejk$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:25:09 on Sat, 16 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> <Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>
>>
>> "Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
>> said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
>> phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
>> finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
>> thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
>> ones I already taught it."
>>
>> <And another colleague from around the millennium, now a
>> professional photographer taking lots of photos and expecting
>> them to be automatically backed up the cloud, but yesterday spots this
>> message>
>>
>> "500k files, 3TB (13TB completed) 2.7yrs remaining"
>
>This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>tractable.

However 3TB in 2.7yrs is simply bonkers.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/12/2023 12:25, Tweed wrote:
> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
> tractable.

A friend in the US uploaded all his photographs to the cloud, took a
couple of days.

He did it again later from his work using his connection there, took a
few minutes. It might have been Petabits per second but I think it was
Exabits per second.

In message <ulkgd2$2f3r2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:40:17 on Sat, 16 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 16/12/2023 12:25, Tweed wrote:
>> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>> tractable.
>
>A friend in the US uploaded all his photographs to the cloud, took a
>couple of days.
>
>He did it again later from his work using his connection there, took a
>few minutes. It might have been Petabits per second but I think it was
>Exabits per second.

What LAN technology supports either of those?
--
Roland Perry

On 16/12/2023 15:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> What LAN technology supports either of those?

No idea but sure no problem for the people they do most of their work for.

His company used to have the world's largest databases as one of their
customers, that was a few years ago.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ulk4v5$2dejk$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:25:09 on Sat, 16 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> <Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>
>>>
>>> "Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
>>> said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
>>> phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
>>> finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
>>> thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
>>> ones I already taught it."
>>>
>>> <And another colleague from around the millennium, now a
>>> professional photographer taking lots of photos and expecting
>>> them to be automatically backed up the cloud, but yesterday spots this
>>> message>
>>>
>>> "500k files, 3TB (13TB completed) 2.7yrs remaining"
>>
>> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>> tractable.
>
> However 3TB in 2.7yrs is simply bonkers.

2.7 yr is roughly 1000 days, so that’s 3 GB per day. A day is 86 400
seconds, call it 100 000 for the moment. That makes for 30 KB per second
or about 300 kbps, 0.3 Mbps.

Of course depending on the protocol in use, if there’s significant latency
in opening and closing individual files that may slow things down a bit,
but probably not enough to affect the overall transfer rate so much.

I wonder how long the first 13 TB took - I bet it didn’t take 13 years.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 12:25, Tweed wrote:
>> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>> tractable.
>
>
> A friend in the US uploaded all his photographs to the cloud, took a
> couple of days.
>
> He did it again later from his work using his connection there, took a
> few minutes. It might have been Petabits per second but I think it was
> Exabits per second.

That’s exceedingly unlikely. While that sort of speed has been
demonstrated in the lab commercial products don’t go above 400 Gbps yet.
There’s still terabits between there and petabits never mind exabits.

Getting more than 400 Gbps could be exceeded with compression, which is
unlikely to work well unless the photos were raw, or with multiple parallel
links which would be wildly expensive and potentially difficult to use.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <ulpg8i$3gp9o$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:34 on Mon, 18 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ulk4v5$2dejk$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:25:09 on Sat, 16 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Thread convergence, seen on Facebook by a colleague from the mid-90's>
>>>>
>>>> "Oh thanks Samsung. Went to pay for something in the shop and my watch
>>>> said, oh, I'm updating, can't pay right now. I didn't wait, paid with my
>>>> phone, just as well really, coz the watch update took ages and when it
>>>> finished it said "OK - do you want to add some cards?" Well no, I
>>>> thought, not additional ones. Oh. It means any - it's deleted all the
>>>> ones I already taught it."
>>>>
>>>> <And another colleague from around the millennium, now a
>>>> professional photographer taking lots of photos and expecting
>>>> them to be automatically backed up the cloud, but yesterday spots this
>>>> message>
>>>>
>>>> "500k files, 3TB (13TB completed) 2.7yrs remaining"
>>>
>>> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>>> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>>> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>>> tractable.
>>
>> However 3TB in 2.7yrs is simply bonkers.
>
>2.7 yr is roughly 1000 days, so that’s 3 GB per day. A day is 86 400
>seconds, call it 100 000 for the moment. That makes for 30 KB per second
>or about 300 kbps, 0.3 Mbps.
>
>Of course depending on the protocol in use, if there’s significant latency
>in opening and closing individual files that may slow things down a bit,
>but probably not enough to affect the overall transfer rate so much.
>
>I wonder how long the first 13 TB took - I bet it didn’t take 13 years.

I don't think they said, but by implication maybe in the background over
the last year or two. What triggered his Facebook posting was being told
for the first time ever, what the backlog was.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulpj3i$3h8ft$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:06 on Mon, 18 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 12:25, Tweed wrote:
>>> This is one reason why upload speeds are increasingly important for
>>> domestic use these days. If I’ve done my sums correctly it would take 3
>>> days to upload 13Tb on my 500 Mbit/sec symmetric service, which is
>>> tractable.
>>
>> A friend in the US uploaded all his photographs to the cloud, took a
>> couple of days.
>>
>> He did it again later from his work using his connection there, took a
>> few minutes. It might have been Petabits per second but I think it was
>> Exabits per second.
>
>That’s exceedingly unlikely. While that sort of speed has been
>demonstrated in the lab commercial products don’t go above 400 Gbps yet.
>There’s still terabits between there and petabits never mind exabits.
>
>Getting more than 400 Gbps could be exceeded with compression, which is
>unlikely to work well unless the photos were raw, or with multiple parallel
>links which would be wildly expensive and potentially difficult to use.

I was talking to someone the other day who is working on the 6G specs,
and he said it clearly wasn't a protocol anyone literally in the field
would ever need for the theoretical speed.

Even 5G is in much the same category. So unless there's some 5G network
in that chap's office offering a 20 gigabit wifi-equivalent, or he has
wired 10/100 gigabit, I'm off to deploy a very large pinch of salt.

All of which assumes the cloud servers can soak up something that
intense.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/12/2023 13:57, Sam Wilson wrote:
> That’s exceedingly unlikely.

Some users tend to well ahead of what is available to public.

On 18/12/2023 15:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> I was talking to someone the other day who is working on the 6G specs,
> and he said it clearly wasn't a protocol anyone literally in the field
> would ever need for the theoretical speed.
>
> Even 5G is in much the same category. So unless there's some 5G network
> in that chap's office offering a 20 gigabit wifi-equivalent, or he has
> wired 10/100 gigabit, I'm off to deploy a very large pinch of salt.
>
> All of which assumes the cloud servers can soak up something that intense.

I never mentioned mobile phones/

I am presuming he has a direct fibre connection and they are handling
extremely large amounts of data coming down from satellites.

In message <ulpqd6$3iiud$4@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:41 on Mon, 18 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 18/12/2023 15:09, Roland Perry wrote:

>> I was talking to someone the other day who is working on the 6G
>>specs, and he said it clearly wasn't a protocol anyone literally in
>>the field would ever need for the theoretical speed.

>> Even 5G is in much the same category. So unless there's some 5G
>>network in that chap's office offering a 20 gigabit wifi-equivalent,
>>or he has wired 10/100 gigabit, I'm off to deploy a very large pinch
>>of salt.

>> All of which assumes the cloud servers can soak up something that
>>intense.
>
>I never mentioned mobile phones/
>
>I am presuming he has a direct fibre connection

Using what protocol, and to servers where?

>and they are handling extremely large amounts of data coming down from
>satellites.

Does he work for the Met Office?
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulpq3t$3iiud$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:56:44 on Mon, 18 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:

>On 18/12/2023 13:57, Sam Wilson wrote:

>> That’s exceedingly unlikely.
>
>Some users tend to well ahead of what is available to public.

While that's true, we should nevertheless refrain from exaggerating.

Back in 2002 I had what was probably the only 1GB connection direct from
my desk to the wider Internet, at my office in London. But it was inside
a datacentre, which was on a multi-gigabit ring operated by LINX, for
which I was working. (At the time, most ISPs had as little as a 100MB
connection for the whole of their customer base).

For context, the best I could get at home was two-megabit ASDL on the
Cambridge-Trial, but that was an improvement on the 64K leased line
direct to LINX we were all issued with. That leased line cost about £5k
a year, and the connectivity at the London end was free :)

What it did teach us is that an uncontended, even 64k, felt a vast
improvement on any commercial offering.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/12/2023 19:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> Does he work for the Met Office?

No.

I think their satellites are acting as relays from balloons.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 13:57, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> That’s exceedingly unlikely.
>
>
> Some users tend to well ahead of what is available to public.

While that’s true what you wrote was:
> … It might have been Petabits per second but I think it was
> Exabits per second.

Petabits is of the order of a million times what’s available commercially,
Exabits a (US) billion times. 1.6 Tbps is currently under development.
Petabits is still 1000 times that. While research does run several orders
of magnitude ahead of what is generally feasible it’s not usually that far
ahead.

This is from a couple of years ago. I’m not aware of anything pushing
speeds up another million times since then.

<https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/07/new-world-record-as-fibre-optic-speeds-pushed-to-319tbps.html>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 19/12/2023 09:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Petabits is of the order of a million times what’s available commercially,
> Exabits a (US) billion times.

I did not mention 'commercially'.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 09:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Petabits is of the order of a million times what’s available commercially,
>> Exabits a (US) billion times.
>
>
> I did not mention 'commercially'.

Indeed, nor did you mention ‘technically’. Given the publicised state of
communications technology I’m not convinced that even vastly funded
government black ops setups could routinely get to a million times faster
than the best commercial products when uploading photos to anywhere useful.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 09:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Petabits is of the order of a million times what’s available commercially,
>>> Exabits a (US) billion times.
>>
>>
>> I did not mention 'commercially'.
>
> Indeed, nor did you mention ‘technically’. Given the publicised state of
> communications technology I’m not convinced that even vastly funded
> government black ops setups could routinely get to a million times faster
> than the best commercial products when uploading photos to anywhere useful.
>
> Sam
>

Finding any sort of storage system that could ingest data at that speed
would be tricky, even if a suitable communications technology exists.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2023 09:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> Petabits is of the order of a million times what’s available commercially,
>>>> Exabits a (US) billion times.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not mention 'commercially'.
>>
>> Indeed, nor did you mention ‘technically’. Given the publicised state of
>> communications technology I’m not convinced that even vastly funded
>> government black ops setups could routinely get to a million times faster
>> than the best commercial products when uploading photos to anywhere useful.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> Finding any sort of storage system that could ingest data at that speed
> would be tricky, even if a suitable communications technology exists.

As would getting the data off the device that’s holding the photos locally.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply