POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • chinmaythosar - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    typo , last line 'anternna' .. Reply
  • webmastir - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Cable less server rooms in <10yrs. You heard it here folks. Reply
  • extide - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    I highly doubt it. Sometimes you just can't beat the simplicity of a cable, no configuration/pairing, etc. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Except on the very small/low end I doubt it. Once you've got multiple racks up and running with a decent set of high network activity apps running on a few of them the single 10gb for the room an access point based on something like this can offer will be swamped.

    Also, QoS is much easier to get and maintain on a wired network.
    Reply
  • solipsism - Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - link

    As well as security. Reply
  • Cogman - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Yes, lets take something that is VERY secure, VERY reliable, and VERY fast and replace it with something that isn't as secure, reliable, or fast. Because.. screw it, we hate wires!

    And don't forget, there isn't a single technology which is currently applied to wireless to make it fast which couldn't also be applied to an optical cable (if most of them aren't already). Optical cables operate on the same principles as wireless signals. The difference is the medium (which, the optical medium is WAY more reliable and less prone to things like interference)

    After all, it is EM radiation all the way down.
    Reply
  • enealDC - Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - link

    could not have said it better. Reply
  • wolrah - Thursday, April 17, 2014 - link

    Never. Never ever.

    I have no idea why people keep saying this, but they obviously don't understand server networking needs or the simple fact that anything you can do over a wireless connection to make it carry more traffic also applies equally to wires. Wires will always have more bandwidth and less interference, end of story.

    Wireless networks are good for mobility and easier to install, but servers don't move and are usually located in rooms intended to be easily wired.
    Reply
  • TransformationCAFromSpace - Saturday, April 19, 2014 - link

    Well, if it's a concentrating solar farm and an attempt to get biome and raptor nests (and munition detection) fostered out on the edge where aves won't be instacooked flying above the heliostats...and they eat orange cables, mind you, then sure. Until you want peered hadoop services; then the tunnels will be (salt loops or) fiber, because you can't stack open antenna spaces together (even if you're fine sighting signal down rows of heliostats somehow.) Salt loop server cooling and networking is a midge harder if you want a lateral technology stack from other cogeneration...crank those heat pump junctions up a notch and design cold junctions with biomes. Who wants high-test steel packed with alumina as cladding if it can be paying clients? Reply
  • welkie - Thursday, April 24, 2014 - link

    Wireless is useful where the clients are moving around. Wired always seems to perform better with stationary clients. I don't wanna be all Bill Gates here, but nobody will ever need more than a shielded cat6 ethernet cable. ;) Reply
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Soo... any word on when we might start seeing integrated 10Gb on desktop chipsets? Reply
  • MikhailT - Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - link

    The article gave the only clue we have: "While the 4x4 solution we covered at CES is expected to go into mass production later this year, the 8x8 chipset is expected to arrive in 2015."

    Routers with 8x8 (wave3) likely to show up in the second half of 2015, and for clients. I'd suspect late '16 or early '17 for 8x8 desktops and laptops.

    I wouldn't expect the mobile device to get it before 2018, the power constraints are far greater.
    Reply
  • golemB - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Ugh. The tech industry really should stop confusing consumers with "5G" meaning either "Fifth Generation" or "Five Gigabits/bytes" (and the same with any other number). If we're talking about ten gigabits per second, please write 10 Gbps or 10 Gb/s, not "10G." Otherwise you'll keep propagating more confusion (think of all the iPhone 4 owners who thought they had 4G mobile connections). Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on the way you see it), 10G is Quantenna's branding for their 8x8 solution and it also happens to be capable of up to 10 Gbps theoretical speeds. At least it is better than Broadcom's 5G for the fifth-generation branding (the 5G Wi-Fi itself wasn't capable of 5 Gbps obviously). Reply
  • Likkie - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    I agree, its so confusing at times. Although I think that 5G and 10G should refer to the speed since G is the official SI prefix for Giga. Whereas they should use 5Gen or Gen5 to refer to generation. Reply
  • Beany2013 - Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - link

    They've got to try to make themselves look better than they actually are somehow, but at least 10G in this case actually refers to a potential speed (Even if no client for years is going to be capable of it, and likely no client at all on this generation of wireless - unless you can imagine a tablet with 8 antennas in it).

    It's almost as annoying as the whole 3G LTE/4G thing. When as I recall, they started calling extended 3G standard clients and networks 4G because, frankly, they thought it'd sell better, even though by that point the concept of a true 4G network and the speeds it would be capable of had been thrashed out, and 3G LTE was not, by a wide margin, anywhere close.

    Gits.
    Reply
  • Krysto - Monday, April 14, 2014 - link

    Sounds like slightly boosted 802.11ac-2013:

    http://www.zdnet.com/super-fast-wi-fi-coming-802-1...
    Reply
  • BMNify - Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - link

    "Sounds like slightly boosted 802.11ac"

    it is.... notice though how the antiquated IEEE consensus couldn't even agree to use 1024-QAM 10 bits/second/Hz, never mind 4096 QAM 12 bits/second/Hz bonded channel's , having to make do with only 256 QAM 8 bits/second/Hz

    "The IEEE 802.11ac specification adds channel bandwidths of 80 MHz and 160 MHz with both contiguous and non-contiguous 160 MHz channels for flexible channel assignment. It adds higher order modulation in the form of 256 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), providing an additional 33-percent improvement in data rate. A further doubling of the data rate is achieved by increasing the maximum number of spatial streams to eight."
    Reply
  • LouisMGant - Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - link

    Optical cables operate on the same principles as wireless signals. The difference is the medium (which, the optical medium is WAY more reliable and less prone to things like interference) http://s6x.it/l521 Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now