Home    Bloggers    Messages    Webinars    Polls    Resources   
Tw  |  Fb  |  In  |  Rss
James M. Connolly

What If We Put Wireless on Steroids?

James M. Connolly
batye
batye
12/25/2012 12:32:30 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Increased throughput
it interesting but to be honest I'm still lost a bit... maybe I need to step out of Paradigm... but in my mind it is not clear... it more like point of view???

50%
50%
Toby
Toby
11/13/2012 6:39:20 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Increased throughput
@James: I am wondering if it is a 1600% gain on the worst case transaction loss. Ie if a bodged transaction runs to 10 seconds because of all the tries and retries and then you get it done in .5 second, that would be a big gain...for that transaction.

50%
50%
James Connolly
James Connolly
11/12/2012 8:44:51 AM
User Rank
Steel
Re: Increased throughput
Kelly. That was the core of the back and forth discussions on the Tech Review site. The researchers did some follow-up posts that are worth reading. I won't pretend that I can explain their argument. In fact, I'm happy to leave it to them to commercialize this concept and show us in the real world. I can see how you could get some sort of decent boost, particularly if one lost packet generates two, four, even six more messages as the system tries to resend and confirm receipt, but the 1600 percent gain is hard to understand. My one thought is that maybe they got that huge gain in a particularly bad environment (Amtrak), but that wouldn't explain the big gains they got on the school network (an environment that I have used as a visitor and was pretty solid).

50%
50%
Kelly Balthrop
Kelly Balthrop
11/11/2012 11:04:07 PM
User Rank
Steel
Re: Increased throughput
That makes sense for some of the gain Toby, but it's still hard to see how you get from a 2% loss to a 1600% gain.

50%
50%
smasood
smasood
11/11/2012 12:47:40 PM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Increased throughput
James, pardon me for asking an elementary question. 

Wouldn't the delay in solving the equation for the lost packet distort the actual message? I mean since the information is being sent in bits and one of the packets gets lost while the next ones' make it to the receiver. The info at the receiver could be compromised? 

50%
50%
James Connolly
James Connolly
11/10/2012 9:17:37 AM
User Rank
Steel
Re: Increased throughput
Toby. What I found interesting was thinking about how much overhead must have been involved in checking and resending packets all along.

50%
50%
Toby
Toby
11/10/2012 4:49:48 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Increased throughput
Yes, that must be the way it is achieved. Otherwise you are looking at some sort of a new wireless protocol which would need to be engaged at the towers...probably a little beyond the range of a students MIT project. I like this more and more as I think about it. There is nothing to stop you using this idea for ANY data transmission. App to server, server to SAN etc...all sorts of opportunities there.

50%
50%
James Connolly
James Connolly
11/7/2012 5:55:56 PM
User Rank
Steel
Re: Increased throughput
As I understand it, you're on the right track. Now, it could be that the lost packet, the resends, the confirmations, etc., don't all end up in the same black hole, but they might as well be in the same hole because nothing is really being accomplished during all this interchange. So, the loss of one packet holds up the entire transmission and leads to anywhere from minimal to an order of magnitude of additional demand on the network resources.

50%
50%
Toby
Toby
11/5/2012 5:31:19 AM
User Rank
Platinum
Increased throughput
@James, that is fascinating stuff from those MIT boffins. I can see one way this might actually deliver the gains advertised, even though the data involved is small.

Imagine if for every dropped packet, there is a follow up communication sent to establish if the packet was dropped or received and then another asking for a resend, now imagine this all happens in the same piece of dead air where the packet was lost. In each case the protocol will pause and wait for a response which in turn may be delayed or lost, then repeated. All the pauses add up to time when data could be either streaming again or being synthesized (by the algebra, right?) so the effective additional bandwidth would be much higher than the sum of lost packets.

Just thinking this through and it makes sense. Tell me if I have got it all wrong :)

50%
50%
More Blogs from James M. Connolly
The 40-year-old technology is prepared to leverage its proven capability and installed base to make the next leap in market impact.
flash poll
follow us on twitter
like us on facebook
Enterprise Conversation
About Us     Contact Us     Help     Register     Twitter     Facebook     RSS