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 13880 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2023 05:41:50 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 12 Aug 2023 05:41:50 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CEF40F8C; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 15:41:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2b]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9158940F84 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 15:41:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-56c87f89178so2054470eaf.1 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 22:41:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1691818899; x=1692423699; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8GLE7ZIezNX1VN07EqGL8mXIiqlVaQk9UQGylSwsBNo=; b=G6JRToRwBlS06vm8c85Jd/jkrhR+5EtsizN0/OlDdTMwp22lS0LlGXdgyB2V3MIIoc g7PBtqkOCG/V/TFeyiMoWbp5F2kvP9TU/ORuYQ9vQFL1rOJfnFo2psG7/KrAbA4dNrWT nAkULy6owBtzlxsmHJtS1B20pkWzppm2g6hNbeXe8A88gbBHAdG/kx9ELcfs95NhAKcx YW+eauvd3HsBho8T0cunJ+sVFz4Tzngt6oiTqpQhwpw27EY1Mq/cwV7L4Zgh782QCryq 4AiIQ5vEOivnCYQ9J2L9NXBFLUMIwQVjxhdJFVpsmfaUe1pl68XyQPtRhdzBYQWhYU8E /txg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691818899; x=1692423699; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8GLE7ZIezNX1VN07EqGL8mXIiqlVaQk9UQGylSwsBNo=; b=fACHti4wen7UIh1GARpsSz0gMRYztJ1LNYbN+L7KJhUmiYZc3hsywVXT7kiHjypvgT jChOHuB2rB/xLzpafws2zQsQgylECU9Rn73SWE1raK/lydRFmfO1c2C+f+Q3ZYVAfZBm e3Hx0w3mAQT/OdFNSHKLfHVzYTZFI/hsVnP9atckIG5ffrSRGswYsTjRYIGykIQi02/9 FcVY4ukdmBtc1lrPPFsQoH/YAhp1fugtok66qRwKroHf8eG6pjvnMUnq0FFEugSmUNpj fCFF5RpcQ+GWSYGK9cdAvKeNa5zU3//ROvDuG8QZT/6wRN7Eb/ndOqhrD5w0lDvAK5hN hceg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxN5GiudII9fBnQWfnMTxcbYMxsNRlrwDNf7wvhDvhmZzherW5h RX27GbwyNKOqyi3hnYvJ8QwZQllMXBg7EtsxnOzb5Y1pM0RMMPtc X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IESTcE8/FeMKqRXZRJtXxAa/k1F5AcsSCGIbLIGyUD88LXCXg2rct+YU1mldq4EnF0UHRUoWipmieh1z8IX/Qs= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:6206:0:b0:56c:d9d4:e80d with SMTP id x6-20020a4a6206000000b0056cd9d4e80dmr2800153ooc.2.1691818899227; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 22:41:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6EA66356-0C94-4802-81B6-1CF891EF6EC2@planet.nl> In-Reply-To: From: George Michaelson Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 15:41:28 +1000 Message-ID: To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008355e60602b34851" Message-ID-Hash: RDOQ56X35T5MZYB32FYWCZXVB5H7L4QA X-Message-ID-Hash: RDOQ56X35T5MZYB32FYWCZXVB5H7L4QA X-MailFrom: ggm@algebras.org 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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: when did v8 or later get networking? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000008355e60602b34851 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Someone who worked at BBN told me they had no overhang budget for improvements, they wrote code to fixed price contracts with DARPA and 'maybe we could do that better' was impossible without a second grant. The butterfly we had at UCL had issues. No support worth writing home for. Pre BGP routing was a bit of a disaster. Fixed size prefix tables and LRU ejection. You could time out a telnet to the USA before the login: prompt assuming you even had a route. "Diamond" their SGML multimedia mailer was great, but a one-shot. Smart people. Very focused on the bottom line. (Apologies if this offends anyone ex BBN it's recollection of coffee room gossip from 1985) G On Sat, 12 Aug 2023, 3:08 pm Warner Losh, wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:05=E2=80=AFAM Paul Ruizendaal w= rote: > >> Bill Joy of CSRG concluded that the BBN stack did not perform according >> to his expectations. Note that CSRG was focused on usage over (thick) >> ethernet links, and BBN was focused on usage over Arpanet and other >> wide-area networks (with much lower bandwidth, and higher latency and er= ror >> rates). He then in 1982 rewrote the stack to match the CSRG environment, >> changing the design to use software interrupts instead of a kernel threa= d >> and optimising the code (e.g. checksumming and fast code paths). It was = a >> matter of debate how new the code was, with the extremes being that it w= as >> written from scratch using the spec versus it being mostly copied. Looki= ng >> at it with a nearly 50 year distance, it seems in between: small bits of >> surviving SCCS suggest CSRG starting with parts of BBN code followed by >> rapid, massive modification; the end result is quite different but retai= ned >> the =E2=80=98mbuf=E2=80=99 core data structure and a BBN bug (off-by-one= for OOB TCP >> segments). >> > > When Kirk McKusick tells the story, UCB got a beta release (or early > access) of the BBN stack. UCB was supposed to add the socket interface to > whatever was there. But Bill Joy found it performed terribly (multiple > seconds to connect sometimes, single digit kB over 10Mb media, etc). He > optimized it to make it perform well. This was a combination of rewriting > chunks and tweaking other chunks, which matches your analysis of SCCS. Wh= en > BBN came back with their new, release ready stack Bill supposedly said > something like 'no thanks, we already got one that works way better.' Thi= s > is why much of the structure of the original BBN stack survived the > rewrite: if there wasn't a big issue with them, the design and mechanisms > wound up being conserved by this effort. It was too much work to move fro= m > mbuf to something else, and too little gain. > > I tried to find a good link, but they are in his BSD history retrospectiv= e > talks to differing degrees. Sorry I don't have an exact reference. > > Warner > --0000000000008355e60602b34851 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Someone who worked at BBN told me they had no overhang bu= dget for improvements, they wrote code to fixed price contracts with DARPA = and 'maybe we could do that better' was impossible without a second= grant.

The butterfly we had a= t UCL had issues. No support worth writing home for. Pre BGP routing was a = bit of a disaster. Fixed size prefix tables and LRU ejection. You could tim= e out a telnet to the USA before the login: prompt assuming you even had a = route.

"Diamond&quo= t; their SGML multimedia mailer was great, but a one-shot.

Smart people. Very focused on the bottom= line.

(Apologies if thi= s offends anyone ex BBN it's recollection of coffee room gossip from 19= 85)

G

On Sat, 12 Au= g 2023, 3:08 pm Warner Losh, <imp@bsdi= mp.com> wrote:


On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:05=E2=80=AFAM Paul Ruize= ndaal <pnr@planet.nl> wrote:
Bill Joy of CSRG concluded that the BBN stack did not per= form according to his expectations. Note that CSRG was focused on usage ove= r (thick) ethernet links, and BBN was focused on usage over Arpanet and oth= er wide-area networks (with much lower bandwidth, and higher latency and er= ror rates). He then in 1982 rewrote the stack to match the CSRG environment= , changing the design to use software interrupts instead of a kernel thread= and optimising the code (e.g. checksumming and fast code paths). It was a = matter of debate how new the code was, with the extremes being that it was = written from scratch using the spec versus it being mostly copied. Looking = at it with a nearly 50 year distance, it seems in between: small bits of su= rviving SCCS suggest CSRG starting with parts of BBN code followed by rapid= , massive modification; the end result is quite different but retained the = =E2=80=98mbuf=E2=80=99 core data structure and a BBN bug (off-by-one for OO= B TCP segments).

When Kirk McKusick tel= ls=C2=A0 the story, UCB got a beta release (or early access) of the BBN sta= ck. UCB was supposed to add the socket interface to whatever was there. But= Bill Joy found it performed terribly (multiple seconds to connect sometime= s, single digit kB over 10Mb media, etc). He optimized it to make it perfor= m well. This was a combination of rewriting chunks and tweaking other chunk= s, which matches your analysis of SCCS. When BBN came back with their new, = release ready stack Bill supposedly said something like 'no thanks, we = already got one that works way better.' This is why much of the structu= re of the original BBN stack survived the rewrite: if there wasn't a bi= g issue with them, the design and mechanisms wound up being conserved by th= is effort. It was too much work to move from mbuf to something else, and to= o little gain.

I tried to find a good link, but th= ey are in his BSD history retrospective talks to differing degrees. Sorry I= don't have an exact reference.

Warner
=
--0000000000008355e60602b34851--