
larrythethird |
Until you have a computer with no moving parts, hard drives or tapes, you cannot push enough data through a 1 gig card to use it’s full capabilities. The best servers can burst up to about 600 meg. Only a backup could sustain any data transfer that gets close to that. At this time, 10 gig is for switch to switch.

PeterMac |
Can think of a few applications where it would be useful. Most Linux/Unix systems make far better use of memory than Windows, and running repetative memory / comms applications can easily outpace even a 10Gig card. Remember Ethernet speed is Bits per second, motherboard speed (on newer processors) is 64 bits wide so a 400MHZ FSB system is roughly eqivalent to a 30GB card in terms of data movement. Web Crawlers, and Spammers will love this card.
Also any congested network will benefit from using it, as there will be lots of small messages moving around, and even if it makes little difference on an individual basis the reduction in message times will free up a considerable amount of network time for other use.
As to price, like any other comodity, whatever the market will bear. for some people even 10 times the price of a 1GB card will seem cheep, I doubt if many would be prepared to pay even double at the moment though.

astronomer |
I see 10G as the next logical step in the network backbone which will eventually filter down to servers and workstations. I don’t see doing it server to server at this time unless you have unique needs. We currently have our main windows servers connected to a 1G switch.
From the backup statistics it seems clear our silicon mechanics “backup server” can handle anything our other servers throw at it. We normally sustain a little over 600M from our fastest servers. In a few years we should see servers pushing past 1G but until then I don’t see the point in investing in 10G to the server.
On the other hand, your backbone may well need more than 1G already. Check your utilization. Verify the need before spending the money.
rt

astronomer |
I see 10G as the next logical step in the network backbone which will eventually filter down to servers and workstations. I don’t see doing it server to server at this time unless you have unique needs. We currently have our main windows servers connected to a 1G switch.
From the backup statistics it seems clear our silicon mechanics “backup server” can handle anything our other servers throw at it. We normally sustain a little over 600M from our fastest servers. In a few years we should see servers pushing past 1G but until then I don’t see the point in investing in 10G to the server.
On the other hand, your backbone may well need more than 1G already. Check your utilization. Verify the need before spending the money.
rt

HannahDrake |
Hi,
Great questions. I sent them in to SearchDataCenter.com’s networking expert Carrie Higbie, Global Network Applications Market Manager for The Siemon Company. Although she normally only answers questions that are sent in through our Ask The Experts site, she thought they were great questions, and answered them all!
You’ll find her answers here:
<a href="http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/ateQuestionNResponse/0,289625,sid80_cid953424_tax301483,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/ateQuestionNResponse/0,289625,sid80_cid953424_tax301483,00.html</a>
Hope that helps.
Hannah Drake
Assistant Editor
SearchDataCenter.com