I realize the Thunderbolt port is copper-based, being converted to a fiber optic cable in the cable transceiver but I'm wondering if anyone will build an old-style copper-to-fiber transceiver adapter box. I used to use them at work, going from a copper ethernet cable to a fiber cable. You can get a 100m 10Gbps LC-LC fiber cable for under $200 so Corning's transceivers cost ~$500 each. I know copper-to-fiber adapter boxes cost a whole lot less than that. Of course, having everything in a simple package is worth a lot but $1300 is still a lot of money, even for professional installations.
Has anyone tested the DisplayPort/TB port with cable to see how well it stays in place? If I was going to pay $1300 for a cable, I'd want to make sure it doesn't slip out. I'd hate to use some funky cable holder on a Mac Pro just to make sure it doesn't fall out.
I've used TB to TB between machines (in Target Mode) to transfer large virtual machines to their final destination. When I can transfer gigabytes of data in seconds, that is a huge deal.
...
Have you ever tried using Pooch, http://daugerresearch.com/pooch/top.shtml, to build a Mac cluster using TB as the connection method? It would be interesting to see if this would work and since you have at least two Macs with TB, all you'd need is the software. Pooch works over ethernet and that protocol is available through TB so it might work. Maybe you could talk to Dean Dauger and see if he'd be willing to work with you to get it to work. They you could report back on the very hight speed cluster connection built into every new Mac. Just a thought....
You can get a 100m 10Gbps LC-LC fiber cable for under $200 so Corning's transceivers cost ~$500 each. I know copper-to-fiber adapter boxes cost a whole lot less than that. Of course, having everything in a simple package is worth a lot but $1300 is still a lot of money, even for professional installations.
They got the lengths wrong in the article, it's $1300 for 200ft (60m), $660 for 100ft (30m). Given that the price doubles based on length doubling, I don't think it's all down to the plug components. It is expensive for a cable but it's a limited market - even less than 10Gbps Ethernet or fiber channel as it's not used in servers.
They got the lengths wrong in the article, it's $1300 for 200ft (60m), $660 for 100ft (30m). Given that the price doubles based on length doubling, I don't think it's all down to the plug components. It is expensive for a cable but it's a limited market - even less than 10Gbps Ethernet or fiber channel as it's not used in servers.
Oh I guess I got prices wrong too, $660 is pretty close to competitive with a 10gbit ethernet setup and I assume they've found a clever way to piggy back off the internal processing. Kudos to Corning.
Why does video never get mentioned or do you think the future of video will be wireless or USB? I don't see that happening, especially with UHD coming down the line.
Since TB brilliantly uses the same port interface as mDP I see no reason to assume that TB is failure unless we are to assume that the commonly unused but included external display ports are a failure.
I agree, video would be a good use for this but I think HDMI is going to win that battle. It's already the standard for video and I don't see TB overtaking HDMI. Maybe connections from the display to the computer but other than that I don't see TB taking off as a major I/O kinda like FW didn't. Again, don't get me wrong I like TB and I think it's great at what it does and can have many uses but for most USB is what people will use outside the professional world.
You are almost 100% certainly right. Splicing fibre is the most annoying thing in the world plus you're going to need an OTDR that's 6 figures, a selection of extremely fine 3m polishing gear and a 6 figure fuser.
A common misconception is that 'TOSLINK' is the same as optical fibre. They are really nothing alike as I'm sure you know.
Isn't most fiber 50 and 62.5 micron? Would a common fusion splicer even work on this 80 micron Thunderbolt fiber?
Isn't most fiber 50 and 62.5 micron? Would a common fusion splicer even work on this 80 micron Thunderbolt fiber?
I have the same question. Why is Corning uses 80 mm fiber? From what I briefly read, the smaller size fiber actually allows faster communications over longer distances.
"50 micron multimode fiber offers nearly three times more bandwidth (500 MHz·km) than FDDI-grade 62.5 micron fiber (160 MHz·km) at a wavelength of 850 nm [nanometers]." I assume this means 80 micron fiber would provide even less bandwidth.
You are almost 100% certainly right. Splicing fibre is the most annoying thing in the world plus you're going to need an OTDR that's 6 figures, a selection of extremely fine 3m polishing gear and a 6 figure fuser.
I just googled and found that fiber optic fusion splicers are a lot cheaper now ($2K-6K USD), although I don't know whether the typical units used for communication fiber would be suitable for the optical Thunderbolt cable. The one I used many years ago (which was a used one in the 5 figure range) did not require the fiber to be polished. Rather, a scribe and break method is used to cleave the fiber to create a clean, flat face. Stripping the fiber is certainly annoying, but watching a fusion splicer work is pretty awesome--you get to watch a magnified view of the fiber automatically get aligned to sub-micron accuracy, then after a bright glow, it's fused.
Also, you can get an OTDR for less than $10K. Although some of those Fluke kits can get quite a bit pricier.
I agree, video would be a good use for this but I think HDMI is going to win that battle. It's already the standard for video and I don't see TB overtaking HDMI. Maybe connections from the display to the computer but other than that I don't see TB taking off as a major I/O kinda like FW didn't. Again, don't get me wrong I like TB and I think it's great at what it does and can have many uses but for most USB is what people will use outside the professional world.
Although HDMI is certainly ubiquitous, I wonder if it will win the battle. I realize there are other factors then pure specs that affect adoption rates, but based on specs alone, the DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort part of Thunderbolt already win over HDMI for video. The currently available DisplayPort 1.2 spec can already handle 3840x2160 @ 60Hz w/10-bit color. Right now, HDMI tops out at 3840x2160 @ 24/30Hz w/8-bit color. HDMI 2.0 will improve things, but by the time it is widely deployed, DP will also have an updated version. DP is also royalty-free, and the full-size version has a locking connector, which is nice (the little Thunderbolt/MDP connectors make me a little nervous with the largish connector shell on that fiber though).
Comments
I realize the Thunderbolt port is copper-based, being converted to a fiber optic cable in the cable transceiver but I'm wondering if anyone will build an old-style copper-to-fiber transceiver adapter box. I used to use them at work, going from a copper ethernet cable to a fiber cable. You can get a 100m 10Gbps LC-LC fiber cable for under $200 so Corning's transceivers cost ~$500 each. I know copper-to-fiber adapter boxes cost a whole lot less than that. Of course, having everything in a simple package is worth a lot but $1300 is still a lot of money, even for professional installations.
Has anyone tested the DisplayPort/TB port with cable to see how well it stays in place? If I was going to pay $1300 for a cable, I'd want to make sure it doesn't slip out. I'd hate to use some funky cable holder on a Mac Pro just to make sure it doesn't fall out.
...
I've used TB to TB between machines (in Target Mode) to transfer large virtual machines to their final destination. When I can transfer gigabytes of data in seconds, that is a huge deal.
...
Have you ever tried using Pooch, http://daugerresearch.com/pooch/top.shtml, to build a Mac cluster using TB as the connection method? It would be interesting to see if this would work and since you have at least two Macs with TB, all you'd need is the software. Pooch works over ethernet and that protocol is available through TB so it might work. Maybe you could talk to Dean Dauger and see if he'd be willing to work with you to get it to work. They you could report back on the very hight speed cluster connection built into every new Mac. Just a thought....
They got the lengths wrong in the article, it's $1300 for 200ft (60m), $660 for 100ft (30m). Given that the price doubles based on length doubling, I don't think it's all down to the plug components. It is expensive for a cable but it's a limited market - even less than 10Gbps Ethernet or fiber channel as it's not used in servers.
That seems like a good deal for such a huge speed increase.
They got the lengths wrong in the article, it's $1300 for 200ft (60m), $660 for 100ft (30m). Given that the price doubles based on length doubling, I don't think it's all down to the plug components. It is expensive for a cable but it's a limited market - even less than 10Gbps Ethernet or fiber channel as it's not used in servers.
Oh I guess I got prices wrong too, $660 is pretty close to competitive with a 10gbit ethernet setup and I assume they've found a clever way to piggy back off the internal processing. Kudos to Corning.
Based on current adoption rates and prominence of other technologies it will arrive right after FW3200.
I agree, video would be a good use for this but I think HDMI is going to win that battle. It's already the standard for video and I don't see TB overtaking HDMI. Maybe connections from the display to the computer but other than that I don't see TB taking off as a major I/O kinda like FW didn't. Again, don't get me wrong I like TB and I think it's great at what it does and can have many uses but for most USB is what people will use outside the professional world.
You are almost 100% certainly right. Splicing fibre is the most annoying thing in the world plus you're going to need an OTDR that's 6 figures, a selection of extremely fine 3m polishing gear and a 6 figure fuser.
A common misconception is that 'TOSLINK' is the same as optical fibre. They are really nothing alike as I'm sure you know.
Isn't most fiber 50 and 62.5 micron? Would a common fusion splicer even work on this 80 micron Thunderbolt fiber?
Isn't most fiber 50 and 62.5 micron? Would a common fusion splicer even work on this 80 micron Thunderbolt fiber?
I have the same question. Why is Corning uses 80 mm fiber? From what I briefly read, the smaller size fiber actually allows faster communications over longer distances.
"50 micron multimode fiber offers nearly three times more bandwidth (500 MHz·km) than FDDI-grade 62.5 micron fiber (160 MHz·km) at a wavelength of 850 nm [nanometers]." I assume this means 80 micron fiber would provide even less bandwidth.
Isn't most fiber 50 and 62.5 micron? Would a common fusion splicer even work on this 80 micron Thunderbolt fiber?
I haven't spliced anything in years. I'll message a colleague and get specs on their equipment.
You are almost 100% certainly right. Splicing fibre is the most annoying thing in the world plus you're going to need an OTDR that's 6 figures, a selection of extremely fine 3m polishing gear and a 6 figure fuser.
I just googled and found that fiber optic fusion splicers are a lot cheaper now ($2K-6K USD), although I don't know whether the typical units used for communication fiber would be suitable for the optical Thunderbolt cable. The one I used many years ago (which was a used one in the 5 figure range) did not require the fiber to be polished. Rather, a scribe and break method is used to cleave the fiber to create a clean, flat face. Stripping the fiber is certainly annoying, but watching a fusion splicer work is pretty awesome--you get to watch a magnified view of the fiber automatically get aligned to sub-micron accuracy, then after a bright glow, it's fused.
Also, you can get an OTDR for less than $10K. Although some of those Fluke kits can get quite a bit pricier.
I agree, video would be a good use for this but I think HDMI is going to win that battle. It's already the standard for video and I don't see TB overtaking HDMI. Maybe connections from the display to the computer but other than that I don't see TB taking off as a major I/O kinda like FW didn't. Again, don't get me wrong I like TB and I think it's great at what it does and can have many uses but for most USB is what people will use outside the professional world.
Although HDMI is certainly ubiquitous, I wonder if it will win the battle. I realize there are other factors then pure specs that affect adoption rates, but based on specs alone, the DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort part of Thunderbolt already win over HDMI for video. The currently available DisplayPort 1.2 spec can already handle 3840x2160 @ 60Hz w/10-bit color. Right now, HDMI tops out at 3840x2160 @ 24/30Hz w/8-bit color. HDMI 2.0 will improve things, but by the time it is widely deployed, DP will also have an updated version. DP is also royalty-free, and the full-size version has a locking connector, which is nice (the little Thunderbolt/MDP connectors make me a little nervous with the largish connector shell on that fiber though).
Also, you can get an OTDR for less than $10K. Although some of those Fluke kits can get quite a bit pricier.
It was my own stupid mistyping in the first place. I was saying 5 figures, not 6. I'm dumb
hi
has anyone had any luck at splicing this cable yet? does any one have the spec of the fiber? i like to give it a go
cheers