Maximizing Space: How Reduced Cladding and Coating Fibers Improve Data Center Efficiency Just the other day, I was reminiscing about some exploits from the past. One that came to mind was when I had to put together a mock-up to analyze how much Cat6a we could responsibly manage in an 800mm wide 42RU rack. At that time, we established that anything beyond 240 patches would significantly increase the operational risk during moves, adds, and changes. It was also around that

In the first three parts of this blog series, we explored various critical aspects of IT cabling for AI clusters, emphasizing the impact of high bandwidth and latency requirements on connectivity solutions, the practical considerations of deployment and installation, and the sustainability implications of different cabling choices.

It has been a while to get part 3 going as I was emerged in the cabling architecture of the NVIDIA H100 and GB200 ultra large clusters and how this impacts the cabling product portfolio. And am glad to share some lessons from that here.

In Part 2 of the blog series on IT cabling for AI clusters, the focus shifts to deployment and installation factors that influence cabling choices. Pre-mounting and pre-cabling racks offsite for faster deployment is common, but several critical external connections—such as ICI switches, FrontEnd, BackEnd, and management connections—require additional consideration. Running cables to a top-of-rack panel offers benefits such as better cable management, reduced risk of damaging transceivers, and the ability to pre-test systems before deployment. Three options for preparing the computer room for AI clusters are discussed: point-to-point cabling, structured cabling with patch panels in the rack, or structured cabling using an Over Head Enclosure (OHE). The choice between these methods is driven by factors like cost, operational risk, and future reusability. The next blog will dive deeper into structured cabling and future bandwidth considerations.

This article explores the pros and cons of point-to-point versus structured cabling in AI clusters, particularly in light of increasing bandwidth demands. It distinguishes between training and inference GenAI clusters, emphasizing the high computing and storage needs of training clusters and the importance of rapid deployment and operational efficiency. The article highlights the impact of Return Loss (RL) on network signal quality in fiber connections, especially in high-bandwidth environments. Additionally, it compares copper and fiber in terms of latency, noting that while copper has lower latency, it is limited in distance. The next blog will cover deployment, installation, power, cooling, and sustainability aspects.

The last couple of months there has been a lot of noise about the expected boom of 400Gb, 800Gb
and 1.6Tb in the next 2-3 years. Yet it seems only yesterday we made the jump of 40Gb to 100Gb.
Similar with latency where requirements increased from us to ms, yet latency in some of my latest
project, related to the gateways to the cloud, was in ms. And I thought we were quite advanced in
these things, was I so wrong or behind in my assumptions?
Figure 1: 2021 Lightcounting study on transceiver speed market growth
I think there are a few aspects currently making noise that need to be put in the right perspective.
Indeed there is advanced requirement around AI with increased bandwidth demand and low
latency expectations. But is this going to impact every aspect of the data center?
First of all the AI clusters will become the brain of the IT and you will still need the customer facing
applications that will run in your DC or cloud environment. Secondly not all applications have a
need for AI, e.g. the application responsible for paying your wages once a month, does not
necessarily has to be AI driven. Third there is the difference between training and inference, where
the amount of AI clusters needed to train models is a multiple of the hardware needed to apply
the inference. All this will impact the amount of AI hardware needed, so were are the sudden
expectations of massive 800G and beyond transceiver sales over the next couple of years come
from.

Understanding RoCE v2: The Future of High-Performance Networking In the rapidly advancing field of networking technologies, Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) has emerged as a key player, revolutionizing data transfer processes and enhancing overall network efficiency. Among RDMA technologies, RoCE (RDMA over Converged Ethernet) stands out, with its second version, RoCE v2, delivering significant improvements in performance and versatility. This article delves into RoCE v2, exploring its technology, network cards, and how it compares with InfiniBand. What is RoCE v2?

In today’s tech landscape, Converged Network Adapters (CNAs) are pivotal for enhancing efficiency and integration within data centers. CNAs amalgamate the functionalities of traditional network interface cards (NICs) and storage area network (SAN) host bus adapters (HBAs), creating a unified interface that supports Ethernet, Fibre Channel, and iSCSI protocols. This convergence streamlines infrastructure, improves performance, increases scalability, and reduces operational costs.

The evolution from traditional perimeter security to Zero Trust has transformed cyber defense. While traditional models rely on network boundary protection and trust internal users, Zero Trust assumes no default trust, continuously verifies all users and devices, and enforces strict access controls, effectively addressing modern cyber threats and enhancing security.

From Perimeter to Zero Trust: The Evolution of Cyber Defense What is the Traditional Perimeter Security Model? The traditional perimeter security model, often referred to as the castle-and-moat approach, focuses on securing the network’s outer boundaries. This model employs firewalls and other security measures to block external threats from entering the network. Once inside the network, users are typically granted unrestricted access to resources, creating a false sense of security. This approach assumes that anyone within the network perimeter is