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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 7085 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2023 01:00:16 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2023 01:00:16 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83EE41391; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:00:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0AE41389 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:00:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id d20so3302725vsf.11 for ; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 17:00:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678410005; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tzTH9DEPLawrxiT2jC2hzCBgKF8z2VGUocwp80RZk+s=; b=W1wK4s/MHF9T9czHzLQsFkscQ7pJNnolYruKzASVLZ+KE+idDrEGR6R4XTGuhMK5MM gmFgpj6LM1Dw4QIaolQZPzasyQIn571hgFMidEa20gTgD9bewVjGYPv/Y62P+TjR4Z9s 1sdxO1iVQHp6ygGg1F7f2dI1rmAoNDlq3x4bHLTtkKLBwNqz27uZ4jQrQ3SNHBjgvyvj 3ToRtdqaxPh9Ml6YBvU5lqygi+CbGLOJPYJWGlPnemTVeisBcl+N8fLSnoazBx+eB4IO 48Ub0mV3/x23IxTe5EnTRT/dAOY8CZZJk4b0bR80zV11NML/uFXwNh/lH7e7aqAI36o6 NbXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678410005; 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=tzTH9DEPLawrxiT2jC2hzCBgKF8z2VGUocwp80RZk+s=; b=CWbzsOOjUDDl1nvMJ/uwYf2Q3q2lAVsx9u0bwFl96k5pSBxZTKgCCtG0hkaYofUNaH Kn5CcEuqDkIkWNk9Il0cwqtpzC3h6KJdCQ6Q7Vg18n92N2u2mFsUcrV5lq3bocaQaCg/ mQxc1lqYxDoYu+atcHNcXvWmq6LA8vXmSIZhPZNpHUVMz8FlxdETxsv8Z6aZ/XHJJ4o/ v34Us1KqzA8LIJQbRG+2P2xsgdFVQBhRIs+1TVfNOjtLsQH+TV0jvf6YKTfJGpxtxKLR 0/HUFqzyvxhIYZr2IYQ+j37K6jvbWtcgkE+sMzCT5/bgc4DB6jexDfrxj27RBZt8Kxsb s5UA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX0p7ii+fgy4GlgNkilvfi5+Xl0U6bqazQmAv5Bj92AViqAl2LS Pd9W0NGP6xgAwj/CiHmz47MxXD5K1xvq+nyQ+cQGlbT3u8A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9pXf7t1bSnB7Tt7QBiItjMZQRVfH/uBuY0NwbM98gAAtFTNWArrLeV2btshR3GhIMNZFQdIo46JWFngG1ORPo= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e053:0:b0:415:48dd:e0b9 with SMTP id n19-20020a67e053000000b0041548dde0b9mr16101763vsl.3.1678410005316; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 17:00:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Tom Lyon Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:59:54 -0800 Message-ID: To: ron minnich Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002788bd05f6814888" Message-ID-Hash: TKSF7SWSR2QWRGWNAMH47DZ5SMMS2KMF X-Message-ID-Hash: TKSF7SWSR2QWRGWNAMH47DZ5SMMS2KMF X-MailFrom: pugs78@gmail.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: --0000000000002788bd05f6814888 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wro= te: > 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 wa= s > 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 experimen= t > 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. > --0000000000002788bd05f6814888 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sun chose UDP for NFS at a point when few if any people be= lieved TCP could go fast.
I remember (early=C2=A0 80s) being told that = one couldn't use TCP/IP in LANs because they were WAN protocols.=C2=A0 = In the late 80s, WAN people were saying you couldn't use TCP/IP because= they were=C2=A0LAN protocols.

But UDP for NFS was= more attractive because it was not byte stream oriented, and didn't re= quire copying to save for retransmissions.=C2=A0 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 d= isk block protocol) - but it was terribly specific to particular hardware c= omponents.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:24=E2=80=AFPM ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
Ca. 19= 81, 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 reason. It was a reasonably=C2=A0big deal when we started= to move to TCP for NFS ca 1990 (my memory of the date -- I know I did it o= n my own for SunOS as an experiment when I worked at the SRC -- it seemed t= o come into general=C2=A0use about that time).

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

I sort of think I know, but I sort o= f think I'm probably wrong.
--0000000000002788bd05f6814888--