

Fujitsu develops new data transfer protocol 30 times faster than TCP - derpenxyne
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/147152-fujitsu-develops-new-data-transfer-protocol-that-is-30-times-faster-than-tcp

======
andrewcooke
_if the company divulged its secret, it wouldn’t be able to commercialize the
new protocol_

why? does it contain nothing new? have software patents suddenly become
worthless?

------
jpdoctor
As usual, anything from extremetech is worth ignoring.

------
notatoad
What is the actual time associated with the TCP protocol? I'm imagining that
30x faster is pretty much an unnoticeable difference in real-world usage.

~~~
wmf
They mean 30x throughput, not 30x less CPU time.

~~~
notatoad
I think if that were their claim, they might be running up against the laws of
physics. Wires aren't going to carry 30x their current throughput no matter
what the protocol is.

~~~
wmf
Did you read the article? TCP does not deliver line rate 10 Gbps between Japan
and Europe, especially with packet loss.

~~~
waps
There's a reason it doesn't. Packet loss means the links between Japan and
Europe are congesting, and people should back off with their sending speeds.

If they don't, we won't have an internet anymore. This protocol looks designed
to make that happen.

------
m0nastic
Superficially, this sounds similar to what CurveCP[1] does (modulo the
cryptography being done on the latter).

[1] <http://curvecp.org/index.html>

------
Geee
The press release is slightly better
[http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2013/20...](http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2013/20130129-02.html)

Basically it's a software solution that transmits over UDP with their own mix
of algorithms to make it reliable, but faster than TCP. TCP is broken on
mobile, anyway [1]. So, this should be good news.

[1] <http://blog.davidsingleton.org/mobiletcp/>

~~~
snogglethorpe
Er, I'm not so sure it's good news, given their obvious desire to "monetize"
it.

A standard protocol that's freely implementable by all is _vastly_ superior to
a slightly faster proprietary protocol heavily encumbered by IP bullshit.

~~~
chii
Monetizing a protocol is poor form, but monetizing an implementation of a
protocol is not.

If they created a new protocol specification, and opened it up, _and_ their
implementation (which could be proprietary for all i care) is faster, then its
all fine. As long as other people could implement the protocol in a different
way without infringing on patents.

~~~
snogglethorpe
Sure, but that last "as long as" is a _huge_ one ... getting on a patent
gravy-train is almost certainly a prime goal.

------
wmf
Sounds generally similar to Aspera, RaptorQ, etc. It's not clear what's new
here, if anything.

~~~
ricardobeat
Why aren't we replacing TCP with these?

~~~
wmf
Realistically, normal TCP works fine in most cases and multiple parallel TCP
connections (a la GridFTP or BitTorrent) can fix the other cases. TCP
replacements tend to be pretty complex and some of them are proprietary, so
IMO it's just not worth the complexity.

------
politician
tl;dr: Fujitsu makes an unverifiable claim because the details of the
algorithm have not been made public.

------
prodigal_erik
The "bouncer" metaphor seems to be describing
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#Selective_acknowledgments),
which we already have. Is it really possible to do that much better?

------
insaneirish
TCP is plenty fast when tuned for the latency of the link. You just need
appropriately large window sizes.

------
jpxxx
Oh look, it has better "latancy". Flag and bag.

