USB 3.0 networking

[usao]

I have been reading about the possibility of connecting 2 or more computers via USB 3.0 cables to achieve throughput around 4-5 GBit/sec, which is around 4-5 times faster than standard gigabit ethernet.
It appears as though you need a special "bridge" cable, although I haven't located any such products yet.
Has anyone setup a USB 3.0 network, either point-to-point or via a USB 3.0 hub?
I would just like to know if this is feasible, and if so, what cables and/or hubs are able to support this?
I might be interested in using this for iSCSI as a way to break through the 100MByte/sec limitations of standard networking.

 

[azazel1024]

Multiple gigabit NICs and Windows 8+. Then you have SMB Multichannel to easily break the 1Gbps barrier.

I do 230MB/sec regularly with a pair of NICs in my server and my desktop.

As for what you are asking specifically, no I haven't seen it done. I have seen Thunderbolt direct connected networking done.

Also keep in mind, USB3 is lower overhead than USB2, but you still don't get 5Gbps and 4Gbps would be unlikely. Figure 3.5Gbps of available bandwidth. Its also serial, ethernet is duplex, so you actually have 2Gbps of bi-directional bandwidth...which means a pair of bonded adapters through SMB Multichannel is greater aggregate bandwidth than you are likely to get through USB3...if that is even possible.

I highly doubt you'd have success using a hub to connect multiple machines, even with the right drivers and special cables.

Also keep in mind USB3 has very strict limits on range (what, 10 meters? 5 meters?)

 

[System Error Message]

There are direct usb3 to usb3 port cables for usb3 networking however the bandwidth for usb3 is for both ways whereas ethernet is bidirectional. USB3 has a more limited range than ethernet.

The 2nd problem with usb is CPU usage. You can get a really good usb3 ethernet connector but there will always be some CPU overhead. Connecting via PCIe such as with thunderbolt or add in cards are always better as it reduces CPU overhead especially if it has direct memory access.

There is also HDMI networking which is much better than using usb with much more bandwidth which is what some switches use for stacking. HDMI can provide more GB/s than usb3.

 

[Samir]

There is also HDMI networking which is much better than using usb with much more bandwidth which is what some switches use for stacking. HDMI can provide more GB/s than usb3.

Interesting. How could you use this between systems though?

 

[System Error Message]

Both systems need to have bidirectional HDMI ports. Most HDMI ports are just one way. One example would be the HDMI used for the commonly used PCIe adapter that some use for DIY eGPU. 4 mini HDMI ports can be used to get the bandwidth of PCIe x16 V2. It might even need less ports depending on the HDMI standard used.

 

[Samir]

Both systems need to have bidirectional HDMI ports. Most HDMI ports are just one way. One example would be the HDMI used for the commonly used PCIe adapter that some use for DIY eGPU. 4 mini HDMI ports can be used to get the bandwidth of PCIe x16 V2. It might even need less ports depending on the HDMI standard used.

So you're talking theoretically and there are no shipping products that can do this, right?

 

[System Error Message]

I myself use an eGPU that uses mini HDMI to communicate with host. There have been some switches with HDMI, prototyping and HDMI networking but they werent released to the masses, only certain markets such as certain datacenters or enterprises. The market for it is currently a niche. You may just be looking in the wrong area.

So yes there are products that ship with HDMI networking but its not in the mass market.

 

[AdvHomeServer]

I have been reading about the possibility of connecting 2 or more computers via USB 3.0 cables to achieve throughput around 4-5 GBit/sec, which is around 4-5 times faster than standard gigabit ethernet.
It appears as though you need a special "bridge" cable, although I haven't located any such products yet.
Has anyone setup a USB 3.0 network, either point-to-point or via a USB 3.0 hub?
I would just like to know if this is feasible, and if so, what cables and/or hubs are able to support this?
I might be interested in using this for iSCSI as a way to break through the 100MByte/sec limitations of standard networking.

Do you live in a 10 x 10 mini-home? If so, USB 3.0 networking between PCs sounds sort of practical. A flash drive might be more in the spirit of a mini-home. If your home has several hundred, or a couple thousand, square feet and you want to send files from room to room, then the cost of a working USB 3.0 cable of maybe 50 foot length might be higher than a cheap wireless router. Also, the dog might chew it in half.

If you're running a business and this is how people will get at Office files from the server via a 7 port USB 3.0 hub, (make sure to cover the wires to prevent people from tripping over them and filing a workman's comp claim) make sure to put that company feature on the CareerBuilder ads.

 

[System Error Message]

dont forget HDMI with its larger cables and limted range too .

 

[AdvHomeServer]

dont forget HDMI with its larger cables and limted range too .

In all seriousness, I have that at home. I always seem to have a laptop running and sometimes catch a show on a network site. I have a 30 foot HDMI cable coming from the TV, along the side of the wall, behind the sofa and coiled under a table next to a chair. The part that is in the open is covered by a textured cable cover I bought from Amazon. When against the wall, it blends in and looks like quarter-round. You can look right at it and it doesn't register.

While a direct connect HDMI wire is not high-tech, it works great, doesn't involve transcoding, and gives me access to the full internet.