"Standards" https://xkcd.com/927/
[deleted]
We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
11–20 of 329 posts
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#12At a glance, this sounds very similar to AWS' SRD protocol [1] - I'm curious how they compare but I see no mention of SRD in this paper.
[1] https://assets.amazon.science/a6/34/41496f64421faafa1cbe301c...
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#13Funny. I worked at AT&T Bell Labs in the 80s. All of these insights seem eerily familiar.
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#14At first glance though he was calling for the replacement of TCL in the Datacenter!
That's not what I'd Expect from John Ousterhout. ;)
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#15"We hypothesize that flow-consistent routing is responsible for virtually all of the congestion that occurs in the core of datacenter networks".
Flow-consistent routing is the constraint that packets for a given TCP 4-tuple get routed through the same network path, rather than balanced across all viable paths; locking a flow to a particular path makes it unlikely that segments will be received out of order on the destination, which TCP handles poorly.
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#16> … it should be possible to bring it into widespread usage by integrating it with RPC frameworks.
That’s a powerful word, “should”. Many software in the datacenter are almost as old as TCP itself, in whole or part. Difficult but working, they will continue to linger unless something more than six letters of aspiration is applied to reimagining and rebuilding that considerable bulk.
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#17[deleted]
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#18Funny. I worked at AT&T Bell Labs in the 80s. All of these insights seem eerily familiar.
Sure; they're also similar to the SCTP insights, from the late 1990s.
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#19It's interesting that everyone (including the author) talks about UDP as a lossy protocol, but it doesn't seem that UDP drops actually occur on a routine basis anywhere. The UDP-based DDOS attacks seem to prove that; if UDP really was being dropped, those DDOS attacks wouldn't be so problematic. That said, it's an interesting read. TCP is inefficient, but that inefficiency has been patched/masked by hardware solution…
Nothing deliberately drops UDP packets, but packets of all sorts get dropped when there's congestion.
Re: We need a replacement for TCP in the datacenter [pdf]
#20> … it should be possible to bring it into widespread usage by integrating it with RPC frameworks. That’s a powerful word, “should”. Many software in the datacenter are almost as old as TCP itself, in whole or part. Difficult but working, they will continue to linger unless something more than six letters of aspiration is applied to reimagining and rebuilding that considerable bulk.
It's theoretically much easier to introduce a new transport inside of a DC, since you're inside the network perimeter and you'll generally have control over policy-based filtering decisions.