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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4997 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2023 00:42:45 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2023 00:42:45 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B18D4137D; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:42:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EABB84137A for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:42:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC781E2271; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 19:42:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from davida@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject :date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; s=sasl; bh=FzeLFY Uoy0yVw123KmPLBLWW4+iD8jr4L6Ae6joU8qo=; b=UhvzSQ2hcywDIr0oman+Ct l/Zaxfv8kcRleyuk4DuJt4unvArqiKiKlDAbH2z60gRTqrcFAJr/apnAmZ6ujtuH vZeltJUHhm4jC5zikMyOZdF23OUPqDHpuH57qZY3smtrJSH3+9AInVwT8DdBVqvF ebOZYvEhLV+dVV75TAkPQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542D41E2270; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 19:42:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from davida@pobox.com) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [203.132.93.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B6461E226F; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 19:42:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from davida@pobox.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: David Arnold Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:42:16 +1100 Message-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: ron minnich X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20D67) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6FC879AA-BEDC-11ED-9900-B31D44D1D7AA-29049682!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Message-ID-Hash: LREDAPQXLLDEM4VDEVAXPWXAWLKBKRDJ X-Message-ID-Hash: LREDAPQXLLDEM4VDEVAXPWXAWLKBKRDJ X-MailFrom: davida@pobox.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: Dan Kegel=E2=80=99s C10k site was 1999, wasn=E2=80=99t it? That=E2=80=99s pr= obably a decent data point for c.2000 d > On 10 Mar 2023, at 11:24, ron minnich wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF > Ca. 1981, if memory serves, having even small numbers of TCP connections w= as 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 me= mory of the date -- I know I did it on my own for SunOS as an experiment whe= n 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, 2= 000, 2010?=20 >=20 > I sort of think I know, but I sort of think I'm probably wrong.