From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 9990 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2023 01:25:06 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2023 01:25:06 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29640413A5; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:25:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288A7413A1 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:24:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696435C019C; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Mar 2023 20:24:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=serissa.com; h= cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1678411491; x=1678497891; bh=zP ovhubIvIi57Dr5UoMeoqH9D6NJMsrpVNV06H4w470=; b=o1sY9QyOcGyaawo5ED yIKabC/7pBcR5IZ94pt6GBrw3qDr6gKuAVYZfXFK4a1OgB+SkDUklXXIaW6ubS6g pVf04u3QXppI0WroetYSYejnNxjdKTu8QtdZG3/xpRa0HK6Lu9GCcRDV3rqe8XK/ UTnPB0RHaKfI9hZqKnnclJ5iU9i7qkp+kqdtF5ghOcx6V9Lz6Hq/cKCWFLgwDCf6 oO0AxyBH/ggftM1ZO7YbWEuVn3p0EiulEmDpL1JLkPtrCFckVsdjdG9IWKkPj7HA lWrb3dXR5BVbKffwY+r5zBgMTLDuJW6TQH9TlEcP745DmSWb/fWUHrLKqp6HU3HC UyFA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1678411491; x=1678497891; bh=zPovhubIvIi57 Dr5UoMeoqH9D6NJMsrpVNV06H4w470=; b=Ji89kO8ZCuxNBgPDnxTzKnHmbAL2S XR3SDlElI9MeI+0dVLxbZDW/o6+bsaMbhU+GoXNFeYaAL3Rhw90FLactrIRTN4w1 VpNx7WR+SbKOWE1wWLI6KQ/vB9l4kQa4LfIjUWOuq6E54ycnBrhQxUWj5quqAF6p 4dHD8yRBwXnbj/shDSMUFMdqsLBfi5zJbGCENJ70REdJZG8Kg2U4fmY5Sq6esiY8 E1syPdkBDJVIWxp3Zp7ZbKt/ZerEFXO5iKHWvuRvmDjwfGs0CmsO10BJrZpG4Znc POvov56XepwBbjhtJUtlqLpEwMS6xkHeo/Vr49gWzXSa/q/yuK1lykRFw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvddujedgfeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffktgggufffjgevvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepnfgrfihr vghntggvucfuthgvfigrrhhtuceoshhtvgifrghrthesshgvrhhishhsrgdrtghomheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevkeekhfegtdeugeehtdeijeevtddtheetheelieeuheei ffeiuedufeeivdeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepshhtvgifrghrthesshgvrhhishhsrgdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ibf61458d:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:24:51 -0500 (EST) From: Lawrence Stewart Message-Id: <933FFF31-B25F-4EE1-BD03-526A3E418528@serissa.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDC55FAF-721D-4F66-8EFB-9012BEA2912A" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\)) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:24:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: To: Tom Lyon , ron minnich References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1) Message-ID-Hash: HMQ3NWQKPXNNKV6U7VSUEK75H7E5KAYB X-Message-ID-Hash: HMQ3NWQKPXNNKV6U7VSUEK75H7E5KAYB X-MailFrom: stewart@serissa.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: scaling on TCP socket connections List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --Apple-Mail=_DDC55FAF-721D-4F66-8EFB-9012BEA2912A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I have one datapoint. In late 1994 or early 1995 at Internet 1.0 = startup Open Market we were working on web servers and IIRC had no = trouble with 1000 (or 1024?) simultaneous clients using TCP. This was = Alpha OSF/1 and probably had 256 MB or some such ungodly amount of RAM. = The big change from the NCSA server was a single process model rather = than one process per connection. I think there was a select(2) limit = that was smaller, so perhaps there were a few processes rather than just = one. I have the sources somewhere. Andy Payne was the lead engineer and I remember him slapping my fingers = when I changed the way logging worked. Regarding TCP performance one story about the turning point was Van = Jacobson tuning the most-likely path down to a very few vax instructions = for packet receiption. That was what, Reno maybe? One of the later = BSDs. -Larry > On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:59 PM, Tom Lyon wrote: >=20 > Sun chose UDP for NFS at a point when few if any people believed TCP = could go fast. > I remember (early 80s) being told that one couldn't use TCP/IP in = LANs because they were WAN protocols. In the late 80s, WAN people were = saying you couldn't use TCP/IP because they were LAN protocols. >=20 > But UDP for NFS was more attractive because it was not byte stream = oriented, and didn't require copying to save for retransmissions. And = there was hope we'd be able to do zero copy transmissions from the = servers - also the reason for inventing Jumbo packets to match the 8K = page size of Sun3 systems. >=20 > I did get zero copy serving working with ND (network disk block = protocol) - but it was terribly specific to particular hardware = components. >=20 > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:24=E2=80=AFPM ron minnich > wrote: >> Ca. 1981, if memory serves, having even small numbers of TCP = connections was not common.=20 >>=20 >> I was told at some point that Sun used UDP for NFS for that reason. = It was a reasonably big deal when we started to move to TCP for NFS ca = 1990 (my memory of the date -- I know I did it on my own for SunOS as an = experiment when I worked at the SRC -- it seemed to come into general = use about that time). >>=20 >> What kind of numbers for TCP connections would be reasonable in 1980, = 90, 2000, 2010?=20 >>=20 >> I sort of think I know, but I sort of think I'm probably wrong. --Apple-Mail=_DDC55FAF-721D-4F66-8EFB-9012BEA2912A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I have one = datapoint.  In late 1994 or early 1995 at Internet 1.0 startup Open = Market we were working on web servers and IIRC had no trouble with 1000 = (or 1024?) simultaneous clients using TCP.  This was Alpha OSF/1 = and probably had 256 MB or some such ungodly amount of RAM.  The = big change from the NCSA server was a single process model rather than = one process per connection.  I think there was a select(2) limit = that was smaller, so perhaps there were a few processes rather than just = one.  I have the sources somewhere.
Andy Payne was the lead = engineer and I remember him slapping my fingers when I changed the way = logging worked.

Regarding TCP performance one = story about the turning point was Van Jacobson tuning the most-likely = path down to a very few vax instructions for packet receiption. =  That was what, Reno maybe?  One of the later = BSDs.

-Larry


On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:59 PM, Tom Lyon = <pugs78@gmail.com> wrote:

Sun chose UDP = for NFS at a point when few if any people believed TCP could go = fast.
I remember (early  80s) being told that one couldn't use = TCP/IP in LANs because they were WAN protocols.  In the late 80s, = WAN people were saying you couldn't use TCP/IP because they = were LAN protocols.

But UDP for NFS was = more attractive because it was not byte stream oriented, and didn't = require copying to save for retransmissions.  And there was hope = we'd be able to do zero copy transmissions from the servers - also the = reason for inventing Jumbo packets to match the 8K page size of Sun3 = systems.

I did get zero copy serving working = with ND (network disk block protocol) - but it was terribly specific to = particular hardware components.

On Thu, Mar = 9, 2023 at 4:24=E2=80=AFPM ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> = wrote:
Ca. 1981, if memory = serves, having even small numbers of TCP connections was not = common. 

I was told at some point that Sun used = UDP for NFS for that reason. It was a reasonably big deal when we = started to move to TCP for NFS ca 1990 (my memory of the date -- I know = I did it on my own for SunOS as an experiment when I worked at the SRC = -- it seemed to come into general use about that = time).

What kind of numbers for TCP connections = would be reasonable in 1980, 90, 2000, = 2010? 

I sort of think I know, but I sort = of think I'm probably wrong.

= --Apple-Mail=_DDC55FAF-721D-4F66-8EFB-9012BEA2912A--