Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's always TCP_NODELAY

brooker.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–276 of 276 posts

Re: It's always TCP_NODELAY

#271

Post by rini17 »

utensil4778 wrote: post #249
p_l wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between QUIC and TCP is the original sin of TCP (and its predecessor) - that of emulating an async serial port connection, with no visible messaging layer. It meant that you could use a physical teletypewriter to connect to services (simplified description - slap a modem on a serial port, dial into a TIP, write host address and port number, voila), but it also means that TCP has no idea of message boun…

It's kind of incredible to think how many things in computers and electronics turn out to just be a serial port. One day, some future engineer is going to ask why their warp core diagnostic port runs at 9600 8n1.

Because of Roman chariot horses ass width or something like that XD

Re: It's always TCP_NODELAY

#272

Post by withinboredom »

saagarjha wrote: post #269
withinboredom wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they meant (judging by the example you ignored) is that the table changes (even if append-only) and you don't know which version you actually have when you statically compile your own version. Thus, your syscalls might be using a newer version of the table but it a) not actually be implemented, or b) implemented with something bespoke.

Generally, if you're patching the kernel you should coordinate with upstream if you care about your ABI.

I don’t think anyone is asking Linus for permission to backport security fixes to their own kernels… that’s ridiculous.

Re: It's always TCP_NODELAY

#273

Post by saagarjha »

withinboredom wrote: post #272
saagarjha wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, if you're patching the kernel you should coordinate with upstream if you care about your ABI.

I don’t think anyone is asking Linus for permission to backport security fixes to their own kernels… that’s ridiculous.

If your security fix alters the ABI it is almost always the case that this is done

Re: It's always TCP_NODELAY

#274

Post by CamperBob2 »

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #261
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, but we do so with much better networks than in the 80s. The extra overhead is not going to matter when even a bad network nowadays is measured in megabits per second per user. The 80s had no such luxury.

First world thinking.

Not really. Buildout in less-developed areas tends to be done with newer equipment. (E.g., some areas in Africa never got a POTS network, but went straight to wireless.)

Re: It's always TCP_NODELAY

#275

Post by assassinator42 »

vilunov wrote: post #266
assassinator42 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proliferation of Docker containers seems to go against that. Those really only work well since the kernel has a stable syscall ABI. So much so that you see Microsoft switching to a stable syscall ABI with Windows 11.

Source about Microsoft switching to stable syscall ABI due to containers?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscont...

"Decoupling the User/Kernel boundary in Windows is a monumental task and highly non-trivial, however, we have been working hard to stabilize this boundary across all of Windows to provide our customers the flexibility to run down-level containers"

Post reply on HN