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_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 21869 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2022 20:33:28 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 Jul 2022 20:33:28 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5B240920; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 06:33:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f54.google.com (mail-pj1-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D20A406F9 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 06:33:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f54.google.com with SMTP id i8-20020a17090a4b8800b001ef8a65bfbdso111197pjh.1 for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZJMiiRqjuuYEzjGqxPmBXLsNxoF7TzipHCbpuU2A0mo=; b=OX5Fpgm9SiYYqmbFjVcK6RJRbVaWma89aOmYLUkllv0Sz4gy9TMYMgZVPBltYnsw5/ zEZOt6BF8WKC6Q6XOl+A6Zzm+1goKnn3nfTFwmxFCPFcmP4fE/iUoXyfNH9nB46cOOha 5AW0iXoD2w653IZjr0g+4yXhYQNdVseHue+mpQVYtNpFO5Qm4dhk32o4S2j2vD/zwp4d luKPoUvYGHUFNibyA4kwIebFmXcJAuD4JsTxVFUuVhUPE3gq7qLGNSKF60adpnJ+RSB+ UZbOr/Vn82iALsOe2xuW9JmYcILF0mVHyw8Cs4+Yw60LUcv4W06Jo3yGx0wqtzlhuqPW 9ffg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZJMiiRqjuuYEzjGqxPmBXLsNxoF7TzipHCbpuU2A0mo=; b=EHhGCLyROiO3B4WWpJilk/wZpNRaJSfp84Tie46jtALMTD0FJdy2NTB6eEMUfFWobS dg4eDXxlRpN5mY6cXffHKl1Fyd7j9pusqJzqwVW2f7UptsCBZAFqy62ntblz0yxt7j9X VZmOim1Snav5XZ0LL5eB0oR93B250D2oZDAQUnDQiuj8DBoAn4oL4LCQbxk93t2lwc5h KRgiaL7XZ3KA2IoHzZ0QT0IJ+tGQM39Odoucu1eVYAdxFWSBMHm2rftwS5ARGROJcvI+ P+w/S+JzVbpnT2C2NqWpspxhN/PvCUqa9x1xVYtUB5WsRrraE9Y2j2Z4PZk9FXeZ8WPO NMzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9FBGjWQnP2G48XYkgFIsyGnI0k8HytHObrKqo2VxNKGWeAwFjV hwgdRA3vfhoGuWe4Q+ykiN8ZNpsgGOGfHhy4n7v/nOmOVB8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uYsw4CqFotJg4MZDg4B/Gp1sD05IPf6a/ShJrQs4MjZC4dLa7XYjC043XfIC+c1bv8hepu6TIuplE9oSHCxMQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2409:b0:16b:c062:87ea with SMTP id e9-20020a170903240900b0016bc06287eamr13905550plo.73.1656880337318; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marc Donner Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 16:32:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0f69b05e2ec8324" Message-ID-Hash: HF2RTUJXMK3GDGKRWUUFEPM66RPAV5C7 X-Message-ID-Hash: HF2RTUJXMK3GDGKRWUUFEPM66RPAV5C7 X-MailFrom: marc.donner@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; 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] is networking different? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000f0f69b05e2ec8324 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On June 28 Rob Pike wrote: "One of the reasons I'm not a networking expert may be relevant here. With networks, I never found an abstraction to hang my hat on. Unlike with file systems and files, or even Unix character devices, which provide a level of remove from the underlying blocks and sectors and so on, the Unix networking interface always seemed too low-level and fiddly, analogous to making users write files by managing the blocks and sectors themselves." I've been ruminating on the question of whether networks are different from disks (and other devices). Here are a couple of observations: 1 - Two different packets may take two different paths from the sender to the receiver. 1a - The transit time for one packet may vary widely from that of the other. 1b - The two packets may arrive in an order different from the order in which they were transmitted. (Note - recently I have been reading Bob Gezelter's monograph [and PhD dissertation] and I've learned that modern high-performance disk systems behave more like networks in 1a and 1b.) 2 - A packet may never arrive. 3 - Behavior 2 not a sign of hard failure for networks, whereas it is generally considered so for other I/O devices. There is probably more to why networks are weird, but these are some of the big dissonances that seem to me to make Rob's comment resonate so loudly to me. Best, Marc ===== nygeek.net mindthegapdialogs.com/home --000000000000f0f69b05e2ec8324 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On June 28 Rob Pike wrote:

=
"One of the reasons I'm not a networking expert m= ay be relevant here. With networks, I never found an abstraction to hang my= hat on. Unlike with file systems and files, or even Unix character devices= , which provide a level of remove from the underlying blocks and sectors an= d so on, the Unix networking interface always seemed too low-level and fidd= ly, analogous to making users write files by managing the blocks and sector= s themselves."

I've been rumi= nating on the question of whether networks are different from disks (and ot= her devices).=C2=A0 Here are a couple of observations:

=
1 - Two different packets may take two different paths fro= m the sender to the receiver.

1a - The= transit time for one packet may vary widely from that of the other.
<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-si= ze:small">
1b - The two packets may arrive in an order = different from the order in which they were transmitted.
(Note - recently I have been reading Bob Gezelter's = monograph [and PhD dissertation] and I've learned that modern high-perf= ormance disk systems behave more like networks in 1a and 1b.)

2 - A packet may never arrive.

=
3 - Behavior 2 not a sign of hard failure for networks, wh= ereas it is generally considered so for other I/O devices.

There is probably more to why networks are weird, but= these are some of the big dissonances that seem to me to make Rob's co= mment resonate so loudly to me.

Best,<= /div>

Marc
--000000000000f0f69b05e2ec8324--