From: Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
To: "tuhs@tuhs.org" <tuhs@tuhs.org>
Subject: [TUHS] Re: scaling on TCP socket connections
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:14:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FEA7A914-49F4-4595-8EDC-8ADA831F4665@planet.nl> (raw)
From reading a lot of papers on the origins of TCP I can confirm that people appear to have been thinking in terms of a dozen connections per machine, maybe half that on 16-bit hardware, around 1980. Maybe their expectations for PDP-10’s were higher, I have not looked into that much.
> From: Tom Lyon <pugs78@gmail.com>
> 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.
I’m not disputing the above, but there was a lot of focus on making TCP go fast enough for LAN usage in 1981-1984. For example see this 1981 post by Fabry/Joy in the TCP-IP mailing list: https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/museum/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n6.1
There are a few other similar messages to the list from around that time.
An early issue was check-summing, with that initially taking 25% of CPU on a VAX750 when TCP was heavily used. Also ideas like having "trailing headers" (so that the data was block aligned) were driven by a search for LAN performance. Timeouts were reduced from 5s and 2s to 0.5s and 0.2s. Using a software interrupt instead of a kernel thread was another thing that made the stack more performant. It always seemed to me that the BBN-CSRG controversy over TCP code spurred both teams ahead with BBN more focussed on WAN use cases and CSRG more on LAN use cases. I would argue that no other contemporary network stack had this dual optimisation, with the possible exception of Datakit.
next reply other threads:[~2023-03-10 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-10 10:14 Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-10 0:23 [TUHS] " ron minnich
2023-03-10 0:42 ` [TUHS] " David Arnold
2023-03-10 0:48 ` Warner Losh
2023-03-10 0:59 ` Tom Lyon
2023-03-10 1:24 ` Lawrence Stewart
2023-03-10 1:32 ` Larry McVoy
2023-03-10 10:14 ` Ralph Corderoy
2023-03-10 15:10 ` Larry McVoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FEA7A914-49F4-4595-8EDC-8ADA831F4665@planet.nl \
--to=tuhs@tuhs.org \
--cc=pnr@planet.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).