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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4883 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2023 10:15:21 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2023 10:15:21 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A12413F9; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:15:17 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1678443318; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=gsq9U3nqaiBFRiOZuLBEj+bHGTHjYE6tlkvFOtUleK0=; b=5RVqAb4nwQfQTikyp+gcnqqcQPaWZZwaHac7mc1OggtY/5nE5SxJLeC8Ew+AHlo22xDv8k ahrkT7ResyOa7D+eaA8e80fU0d8yrbm4TRWuOZLcjfBZOwpG763XuoRiR2Nq+5LDjeL7CJ lGfVThgkVxJOX973iss589SS6YL/j2s= Received: from ewsoutbound.kpnmail.nl (unknown [195.121.94.167]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCCD9413EE for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:15:01 +1000 (AEST) X-KPN-MessageId: 5fcc8509-bf2c-11ed-b20d-005056abbe64 Received: from smtp.kpnmail.nl (unknown [10.31.155.38]) by ewsoutbound.so.kpn.org (Halon) with ESMTPS id 5fcc8509-bf2c-11ed-b20d-005056abbe64; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:14:42 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=planet.nl; s=planet01; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type:from; bh=gsq9U3nqaiBFRiOZuLBEj+bHGTHjYE6tlkvFOtUleK0=; b=VswPK0x+2ispM9lGXwMi7T1hNdCiDTwMf6O8AqSj0elLSaxUDlUVa7HMbHHpWA8gjL+ayaLp+hJuZ HXXk9vxH0XZlTqCV8OArr/mpXRFnxCs1Qi4Jr+gB2BmmGlzVrlkUUr7LSs9E0pIP5sNzgAYp9xrIG+ kIDuYrW65MtEDak4= X-KPN-MID: 33|vb2mXKvcaHeC2ylsKRZz9Zk2vS20QFWMqB6hk1IGP6foKG+9Ci9OvNvHiVcT68b aCWgH3Er34WdrQElBALO8IGcdKsC0vgDGadyuLxv/Q8s= X-KPN-VerifiedSender: Yes X-CMASSUN: 33|ZblPpUrJn3NW1bOOIhTuSfrT/ALh1IMnIuc/ShnUZcQzPm72GnGcaCARUuwXRR1 TUz6EB4RQQX2Roq1MVOSNFA== X-Originating-IP: 77.172.38.96 Received: from smtpclient.apple (77-172-38-96.fixed.kpn.net [77.172.38.96]) by smtp.kpnmail.nl (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 641192ad-bf2c-11ed-97f1-005056abf0db; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:14:50 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:14:49 +0100 To: "tuhs@tuhs.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Message-ID-Hash: BWRFCEM2CQ7EWWXIJXI5AA3KWTU3B6IZ X-Message-ID-Hash: BWRFCEM2CQ7EWWXIJXI5AA3KWTU3B6IZ X-MailFrom: pnr@planet.nl 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: 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: From: Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS Reply-To: Paul Ruizendaal =46rom 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=E2=80=99s were higher, I have not looked into = that much. > From: Tom Lyon > 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=E2=80=99m 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.v1n= 6.1 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.