[wpm]

Home users only do video calls and watch Netflix?

More and more regular people are getting network storage appliances. More and more people have laptops with SSDs that can write at 4 or 5 GB/s. Why shouldn't they get to use all of it?

[afavour]

To quote the previous post:

> I've yet to come up against a download (even a torrent) that seems like it would have really benefitted from having the entire theoretical 1.5 pipe available.

There are many things along the way that would get in the way of a home user downloading something from the internet that would hit that 5GB/s speed. It's not that people should be "banned" from it or something, more that the investment cost isn't worth it.

[fmajid]

I regularly saturate my 1G home and 1G office connection syncing ~6GB files between the two. It's also nice to be able to download a 100G or so game quickly. Remote backups to cloud storage also benefit from fast upload speeds (and more importantly, restores).

[mlyle]

We have a 5gbps pipe; routinely download games from Steam at >3gbps; when I had to reinitialize my cloud backup it was >4gbps. All of this without impacting anyone else on the pipe.

Yah, our P95 bandwidth is just a few megabits per second. But it's not that expensive and routinely saves me a few minutes here and there.

10gbps on the LAN is more broadly useful. Pegging it for a file share is a daily occurrence.

[ProfessorLayton]

Also storage has gotten super expensive lately, and rather than upgrading my machines/consoles I've been offloading games and downloading them as needed and now am routinely downloading dozens of GB just to play a game.

My gaming time is limited so the faster the better.

[rhplus]

I should have said most home users. My point is that more bandwidth at this point probably won’t affect 99.999% of home users.

What’s described in the post is the tech equivalent of supe-ing up a sports car and then driving it in rush hour traffic. It’s fun to geek out doing it, but practically in everyday use the difference will be negligible. Even with large file uploads and downloads, there’s a good chance that services won’t reach those throughputs end to end.

What’s telling is that the post shows screenshots and charts from artificial speed tests. No videos of the Dropbox client chugging away with throttled uploads.

[baby_souffle]

> I should have said most home users. My point is that more bandwidth at this point probably won’t affect 99.999% of home users.

640k should be enough for everybody... DSL should be enough for everybody...

If you build it, they will come.

[jpc0]

> SSDs that can write at 4 or 5 GB/s

In my experience unless you actually pay attention and get something with a dram cache it will sustain that speed for all of 5 seconds and then drop to near useless, and with the current dram shortages that is getting harder and harder to justify.

I just did a build out where ram cost as much as the GPU and both are individually 3x more expensive than the CPU and MB combined.

A decent 2TB nvme drive was also more expensive than the CPU and MB combined.

A 10GB network connection can happily transfer at that speed all day, your SSD is unlikely to maintain Sata speeds unless you actually shelled out for something decent, what came from the manufacturer in the laptop is not that.

[loeg]

How much $ extra are you willing to pay for the extremely occasional transfer at rates higher than gigabit? 2x? 3x?

[sandworm101]

Those ssds are very likely cached and so cannot keep that pace for more than a quick burst of a few gigs.