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 5721 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2023 00:48:41 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2023 00:48:41 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB3541381; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:48:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29084137A for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:48:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id cw28so14241549edb.5 for ; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:48:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; t=1678409308; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zzwZeisDb+KTRm+aSvepNx5GIFXb1tjgJHpr8R0dE6c=; b=voP/C244Y+Fzq2AGKClX3AT/hNzrV9hVWQiOl5gzv+Zgtkxmi1KVZFlZ3A22aWm9Um 9/yQwrEBeCYhFJ6fiIqMYe8BzFzy5oUC5PoglJ+LyKCnXqLBr8+XTnJvONCyB4fCRtDw UQ+fZ/9CK8JOv6c9LeBmHI7Qme6K6cnw2WL13VAwn8NUeT+hAaWLPbUpWocsjCa8+COV GNlEjn/7VPFVu5+EuEVMBjkYRXO0+nQ7UwocBzjGgwOXdKTMRBmkchy3vHIDpd5AyG2Y tAsI8A4ib6U9sGc+YIdPNWTLLTurGuFTvHFFo5vDIpgUgOLCKruVp3creC31hvd7evga mDdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678409308; h=cc: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=zzwZeisDb+KTRm+aSvepNx5GIFXb1tjgJHpr8R0dE6c=; b=N1G7Fyo2H1Vwgw6YWZlwK2V0in1Y510RUMDA3sXY3gYvaMDSOXzbAMzeq9PDhPUpTc iivo5LuQ6BTw0w7Isp+FUifK3s4GHzEv95RM3rqefmtEKI5ylhi6Bg9+WhNQ7/yhDxCl NZalVH4mnLnoWWanVjyy5Q+f2ozFXK/W8rZdl27QVmuhnXL/CFmBe5TgL+aZOdaf7jxV 0u/M1kw7cpdpKrod0SzBJihbPlkKpQ0Lma4RpYg2L3775gT8cTHTVMyEqVv7hCUWR8u8 ITH3oE5sy8E3YARZkWvTt/3LOik59lVJB+PQGKPw/CGEq+QAUpftM5x0jW1eEgUUsqRv NRvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKW/Rf9LrRnfjOz1xG9kxXn3DGTM7dOrAYex3xwIml8UHEY7OUuK iq9gMWINabnFCGEXNo6JX0QbHSuziNuxz6BiQavXlg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/g+XtTTlo4JSiYEMno2O0Lwf0G/LP4Yb3N9imhGdMsa0Az6biPeCzGmxOTur4N7UcAMAJyRxGQJGarg3hwVFQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a05a:b0:8b2:23fb:dfd1 with SMTP id bg26-20020a170906a05a00b008b223fbdfd1mr12450502ejb.2.1678409307943; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:48:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:48:16 -0800 Message-ID: To: ron minnich Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096854605f6811e88" Message-ID-Hash: 63S5K2TTEBNG2DRSHXBDAFYUTBEGSGVE X-Message-ID-Hash: 63S5K2TTEBNG2DRSHXBDAFYUTBEGSGVE X-MailFrom: wlosh@bsdimp.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: --00000000000096854605f6811e88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 5:23 PM ron minnich 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? > Normal systems: 10s, 100s, 1000s, 10ks. Depends on what is a reasonable system... With the high end 10x or 100x that or a bit more. These days we do 100ks of video streams at work on our high end boxes... Warner I sort of think I know, but I sort of think I'm probably wrong. > --00000000000096854605f6811e88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 5:23 PM ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Ca. 1981, if memory serves, = having even small numbers of TCP connections was not common.=C2=A0

=
I was told at some point that Sun used UDP for NFS for that reas= on. It was a reasonably=C2=A0big deal when we started to move to TCP for NF= S 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=C2= =A0use about that time).

What kind of numbers for = TCP connections would be reasonable in 1980, 90, 2000, 2010?=C2=A0

N= ormal systems: 10s, 100s, 1000s, 10ks. Depends on what is a reasonable syst= em...

With the high end = 10x or 100x that or a bit more.

These days we do 100ks of video streams at work on our high end b= oxes...

Warner

I sort of think I know, but = I sort of think I'm probably wrong.
--00000000000096854605f6811e88--