Skip to content
0:00 / 0:00

#gracehopper#nanosecond#latency

Admiral Grace Hopper Explains the Nanosecond

funbury

281 subscribers • 1 video on Hallway

YouTube
  • Recommended by 5 people: 5 on Hacker News.
  • A classic. People kept recommending it from 2020 to 2023.
  • Presented by Grace Hopper, Admiral and computer scientist

Beginner. No background in the topic needed.

163K views14 years ago5 recommendations

History and cultureSystems programmingHistory of computingPerformance and optimization

Admiral Grace Hopper uses physical pieces of wire to demonstrate the distance electricity travels in a nanosecond to make latency concrete.

Admiral Grace Hopper was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer. She developed the first compiler for a computer programming language. Here she explains a nanosecond to a room of learners. Transcript: They started talking about circuits that acted in nanoseconds. Billionths of a second. Well, I didn't know what a billion was (I don't think most of those men downtown knew what a billion is either). And uh .. if you don't know what a billion is, how on Earth do you know what a billionth is? I fussed and fumed. Finally one morning, in total desperation, I called over to the engineering building and I said: "Please cut off a nanosecond and send it over to me." And I brought you some today. Now, what I wanted when I asked for a nanosecond was: I wanted a piece of wire which would represent the maximum distance that electricity could travel in a billionth of a second. Now, of course, it wouldn't really be through wire. It'd be out in space; the velocity of light. So, if you start with the velocity of light and use your friendly computer, you'll discover that a nanosecond is 11.8 inches long (the maximum limiting distance that electricity can travel in a billionth of a second). Finally, at the end of about a week, I called back and said: "I need something to compare this to. Could I please have a microsecond?" I've only got one microsecond (so I can't give you each one). Here's a microsecond: 984 feet. I sometimes think we ought to hang one over every programmer's desk (or around their neck) so they know what they're throwing away when they throw away microseconds. Now I hope you all get the nanoseconds. They're absolutely marvelous for explaining to wives and husbands and children and Admirals and Generals and people like that. An Admiral wanted to know why it took so damn long to send a message via satellite. And I had to point out that between here and the satellite there were a very large number of nanoseconds. You see -- you can explain these things. It's really very helpful, so be sure to get your nanoseconds.

Why it's here

5 people recommend this

What people say. Widely recommended as the classic, intuitive demonstration of physical latency limits and why distance and algorithm efficiency matter in computing.

dmorenoon Hacker News • Recommends

On “Ask HN: What's your favorite illustration in Computer Science?”

My favorite is more a small presentation than an image: Admiral Grace Hoper Explains a Nanosecond. link to this video For me it changed my mind on wasting time on less efficient algorithms.

dougmwneon Hacker News • Recommends

On “A low-mass planet candidate orbiting Proxima Centauri”

Yes it is and no it isn't. Learn from Admiral Grace Hopper: link to this video The speed of light in fiber optic cable is about 2/3 the speed of light, which is why SpaceX's Starlink will have a potential latency advantage over oceanic fiber optics. It also gives good perspective on what's being thrown away when you add a single ms of latency through a router or a display. 186 miles at the speed of light. Many on HN don't get this, but this is why cloud gaming is perfectly feasible if we're running with low latency displays and inputs, low distance to the edge compute, and few routing hops.

lozfon Hacker News • Recommends

On “Captain Grace M. Hopper: The Mother of COBOL (1981)”

> The nanosecond wire alone should be a compelling argument. For those that haven't seen it: link to this video (Of course, I expect that most here have, but xkcd 10,000 and all that.)

klyrson Hacker News • Recommends

On “Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday”

Speaking as somebody who never stopped optimizing like its the 90s: there's definitely a learning curve, but when microbenchmarking becomes a reflex, you learn your language in depth and the burden drops quickly. It only seems esoteric to you because the industry has collectively decided that Grace Hopper is an old codger who doesn't need to be listened to. link to this video

throw0101aon Hacker News • Recommends

On “I bought 1000 meters of wire to settle a physics debate [video]”

> Light is slow, not exactly 1 foot per nanosecond but it's a reasonable mnemonic. "Admiral Grace Hopper Explains the Nanosecond" is a good illustration of this (segment is only 2m): * link to this video * link Full lecture: * link

u/dwkeithin r/compsci • Mentions

On “How is Apple able to create ARM based chips in the Mac that outperform many x86 intel processors?”

Every millimeter matters when data is moving back and forth at the speed of light. I think Grace Hopper explains it best. link to this video

u/vriemeisterin r/compsci • Mentions

On “That's how we got "bug" in our softwares !”

that's a lot of nanoseconds

cogman10on Hacker News • Mentions

On “Your CPU may have slowed down on Wednesday”

Pretty reminiscent of Grace Hopper's nanosecond lecture 1 Certainly there are reasons why a feature might slow down a system beyond the branching (for example, if it requires you to load other resources)... but really, the issue is that as pointed out in the youtube video. Software companies very frequently do not care about performance. 1 link to this video

BenoitEssiambreon Hacker News • Mentions

On “How our free plan stays free”

…ead) and get more instant and more atomic error propagation and edge case resolution. You can really build something lean and mean to a point that would be physically impossible in distributed systems or systems that involve multiple hops over potentially congested networks (as Admiral Grace Hopper likes to remind us, distance matters in computing link to this video ). As far as I know, normalized relational databases are still the best at efficiently using multiple levels of physically near caches to their full potential. Most applications don't need to scale horizontally and can easily fit on single servers (that can scale to dozens of cores and terabytes of ram). I hear arguments that it's the engin…

BenoitEssiambreon Hacker News • Mentions

On “Use one big server”

…d mean infrastructure too). In my mind, reasons involve keeping transactional integrity, ACID compliance, better error propagation, avoiding the hundreds of impossible to solve roadblocks of distributed systems ( link ). But also it is about pushing the limits of what is physically possible in computing. As Admiral Grace Hopper would point out ( link to this video ) doing distance over network wires involves hard latency constraints, not to mention dealing with congestions over these wires. Physical efficiency is about keeping data close to where it's processed. Monoliths can make much better use of L1, L2, L3, and ram caches than distributed systems for speedups often in the order of 100X to 1000X.…

faeriechanglingon Hacker News • Mentions

On “Use one big server”

>As Admiral Grace Hopper would point out ( link to this video ) doing distance over network wires involves hard latency constraints, not to mention dealing with congestions over these wires. Even accounting for CDNs, a distributed system is inherently more capable of bringing data closer to geographically distributed end users, thus lowering latency.

throw0101aon Hacker News • Mentions

On “How Precision Time Protocol is being deployed at Meta”

…e believe PTP will become the standard for keeping time in computer networks in the coming decades. Given the special hardware needed for the grand master clock to get down to nanosecond time scales, I'm doubtful this will be used in most data centres of most corporate networks. Adm. Grace Hopper elegantly illustrates 'how long' a nanosecond is: * link to this video How many things need to worry the latency of signal travelling ~300mm?…

ForOldHackon Hacker News • Mentions

On “In 1870, Lord Rayleigh used oil and water to calculate the size of molecules”

The speed of light, because it is so fast, is the most precise physical constant known : 299 792 458 m / s. Less than 7/1000ths away from 300,000,000 m / s. I am not going to sweat this in the least. So light travels only 0.3 m / nano second, or 11.802 inches. link to this video

throw0101don Hacker News • Mentions

On “When is tech not hype? Tulips, toilets, trains and tabs”

Latency is limited by physics ( c ) and distance; see Admiral Hopper's nanosecond illustration: * link to this video

u/reddiladain r/compsci • Mentions

On “What are some interesting stories and/or facts related to Computer Science that the general public would find really interesting?”

The mother of compilers, Grace Hopper discusses nanoseconds. I still have my nanosecond from a lecture she gave our class in the 70s.