> You can run composite cable if you desire copper, fiber and power.
Oooh. Cool.
By "power" do you mean 120/240VAC, or do you mean much lower voltage DC? I've found some Belden cabling that I think provides mains power and Ethernet, and I've found fiber cabling that I guess carries lower voltage DC, but am having a tough time finding a cable that combines fiber and copper data with mains power. Do you have an example of such a cable handy?
(Full disclosure: I'm refusing to spend more than like five minutes on the search... so I might have been able to dig up examples of such a cable.)
Which is why people run only copper because that costs less than running multiple types of cable everywhere when most drops only have one device, and then pull fibre through using the existing copper cable in the rare instances where they find a need for 40Gbps or more.
But then the copper gets used for 10Gbps connections instead of fibre because it's what's already in the building.
25GB switches do 1/10/25GB, can be used with copper and fiber, use a magnitude less in power per port than a 10GB copper switch and cost the same or less per port than existing 10GB copper switchs.
Yep, 10gb over copper is not power efficient so any savings you get from getting a cheap 10gb switch will just go to your power bill. Most cost effective and flexible is a used 25gb switch. Most 25gb switches can do 1/10/25gb. 10gb networking has been dead for over 10 years.
Interesting observation about power use. How close do you think we are to it being practical to wire your whole home with fiber instead of CAT6 or whatever? If you're providing all your own equipment, are willing to purchase a high-end splicer for maintenance, etc.
For laptops I assume you need USB/Thunderbolt adapters. (Still no SFP+ or SFP28 module for Framework?)
For desktops you'd use an SFP28 card (taking up a PCIe slot).
For devices like Raspberry Pi's, etc. you'd use... local RJ45 switches with optical uplink ports?
Most of my devices only need 1G or even 100Mbps. No reason to switch to fiber. 1G/2.5G copper ports don’t use that much power.
For 10G+ things, it’s fiber or DAC first if possible then RJ45 if it’s the only option.
Then my backhaul between rooms is just single mode fiber, good up to 800G. Plug in a small switch at the end and you go back to RJ45 and PoE.
I only have 10G though (to transfer large files/RAWs between my computer and my storage). Something faster would be nice because NVMe SSDs can go 50G+ but that equipment is pricey and power hungry.
If you need 1G or 10GB over copper you can just use a SFP or SFP+ media converter in a 25GB SFP28 switch port. If you have a POE requirement, say for video cameras you either use a dedicated 1GB POE switch or power injector. A 10GBASE-T (RJ-45 copper) switch consumes 3-12 watts per port and a 24 port switch will idle at 50 to 60 watts and run hot. SFP+ and SFP28 ports use under 1 watt per port. I would never recommend a 10GBASE-T copper switch for any use case in this day and age, home or enterprise.
Not even close to being true, unless you specifically mean 10Gbps over twisted pair (Cat6/7) cable. SFP+ is the default on a ton of network gear still.
I think the point he is making is that the industry first went with a 10g single link, and then 40g over 4 links. Then they figured out how to do 25g over a single link, and 100g over 4 links. Those 25g/100g are common for enterprise switches. It might be fairer to say 40g is dead, 10g still has use cases.
Edit to add: If you want an example, these are the NVidia ConnectX nics available from FS.com, the lowest end one is 25g, then 100g, 200g etc.
What they mean is that the cost per bit both capex and opex/power is worse for 10G than 25G for a while now as long as you talk about new hardware.
We're at the point where 25GBaud PAM4 is being replaced by 50GBaud PAM4.
That's 50 to 100 Gbit/s.
But iirc the use of PAM4 for the faster ones than "only" 25Gbit/s lanes is a hindrance to managing bottom-barrel price-per-bit.
PCIe 3 was 8, PCIe4 was 16, and PCIe 5 is 32 GBaud with a line code basically like the 10+ Gbit/s Ethernet links (well, it's 66b/64b for Eth and 130b/128b for PCIe).
No doubt. Reading this thread leads me to believe that almost no one wants to take responsibility for anything anymore, even hiring the right people. Why even hire someone who isn't going to take responsibility for their work and be part of a team? If an org is worried about the "bus factor" they are probably not hiring the right people and/or the org management has poor team building skills.
Exactly, I just don't understand the grandparent's point, why have a "Postgres person" at all? I hire an engineer who should be able to do it all, no wonder there's been a proliferation of full stack engineers over specialized ones.
And especially having worked in startups, I was expected to do many different things, from fixing infrastructure code one day to writing frontend code the next. If you're in a bigger company, maybe it's understandable to be specialized, but especially if you're at a company with only a few people, you must be willing to do the job, whatever it is.
Because working now at what used to be startup size, not having X Person leads to really bad technical debt problems as that person Handling X was not really skilled enough to be doing so but it was illusion of success. Those technical debt problems are causing us massive issues now and costing the business real money.
Some of the largest orgs have large amounts of IT infrastructure for OT and ISS that is not connected to the Internet. This infra is air gapped or often times on a completely separate physical LAN which is not accessible without passing through multiple physical security controls.
There are a lot of OT, safety and security infrastructure that must be run on premise in large orgs and require four to five nines of availability. Much of the underlying network, storage, and compute infra for these OT and SS solutions run proprietary OSs based on a BSD OS. BSD OSs are chosen specifically for their performance, security and stability. These solutions will often run for years without a reboot. If a patch is required to resolve a defect or vulnerability it generally does not require a reboot of the kernel and even so these solutions usually have HA/clustering capabilities to allow for NDU (non disruptive upgrades) and zero downtime of the IT infra solution.
