> 56% A records, 25% AAAA, and 19% TXT
And they say nobody uses IPV6.
Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
101–110 of 306 posts
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#102Obvious question: why wasn’t this done earlier? It looks like all the data was already available. At THAT scale, reducing memory usage is a must-have, not a nice-to-have. Weird.
probably agents going through tech debt or finding wins
every dept knows what they could do with more budget, the budget for those things just never comes
now agents have utilized budget more effeftively, unbottlenecking many things, including engineering blogs
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#103These seem like some fairly standard approaches for reducing memory usage. I can't help to think that the approach of joining several distinct list into a single one in some way undercuts Rust's safety guarantees. If you previous had three distinct Vec objects, then Rust would guarantee that you can't index out of bounds. If you now put all those objects into a single Vec and rely on offsets, then you now open the do…
It's the exact thing Rust is made to protect against, on a more local scale. Every memory corruption bug is just an out-of-bounds index that wasn't protected against.
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this powers 1.1.1.1, it doesn't front an internal dataset. A cache miss hits a nameserver. Which is to say, the dataset is "every DNS record in the world"
I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially with smart caching in front of database. 100TB of flash is a good bit cheaper than 100TB of memory
It's not 100TB of data. It's probably 50 GB of data on each of 2000 servers. Because it's a cache. What is the point of a central cache if it's as slow to access as the original data?
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#105Obvious question: why wasn’t this done earlier? It looks like all the data was already available. At THAT scale, reducing memory usage is a must-have, not a nice-to-have. Weird.
Cloudflare talks about having datacenters in 300+ cities. Presumably they have at least a few servers per datacenter. They saved 130 servers worth of memory... not even the minimum number of servers they have (seriously though, they probably have a LOT of servers)... a few GBs of memory per server running the service. At that scale this is a nice-to-have.
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#106This is the right way to deliver software. Produce working product first, validate the idea, stabilize the business, start generating profit, and then you can start optimizing your costs. In fact optimization is by far the easiest part of the process because there are many system programming experts on this HN thread who consider these optimizations to be trivial.
This reasoning assumes you have access to infinite runway. You don't.
we are all perfectly smooth, round, and filled with an incompressible liquid
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#107Now put the 100 terabytes of memory back to the market. Stop hoarding RAM.
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#108> we store the records as a single Box containing each record encoded as a 2-byte length prefix followed by its raw bytes. Interestingly this is exactly how netlink works-ish: https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/focal/man3/netlink.3.ht... You start, get the type & length, and then that is how many bytes you read. Some issues with that when you deserialize, from a raw stream in to `[u8; 4096]` buffer, the alignment i…
It's called TLV encoding - tag/length/value. It's very common in all sorts of network protocols and serialisation formats. It allows you to skip unidentified tags. Sometimes, like in the PNG file format, there's a fixed bit in the tag that tells you whether it's safe to skip or if you have to reject the whole thing because you don't understand this tag.
Hey dang can I get my rate limit turned off pretty please?
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#109These seem like some fairly standard approaches for reducing memory usage. I can't help to think that the approach of joining several distinct list into a single one in some way undercuts Rust's safety guarantees. If you previous had three distinct Vec objects, then Rust would guarantee that you can't index out of bounds. If you now put all those objects into a single Vec and rely on offsets, then you now open the do…
It's the exact thing Rust is made to protect against, on a more local scale. Every memory corruption bug is just an out-of-bounds index that wasn't protected against.
is dangling pointers reuse memory corruption bug from out of bound index?
Re: Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
#110General theme: A programming language's native in-memory object format is typically optimized for random access, uniformity, and mutability (fields at fixed offsets, etc). Serialization formats for network or disk tend to be designed explicitly to be more compact. But you can design your own in-memory representation too, with the properties you need.
That’s the old school of thought. These days, designers of newer serialization formats realize that designing a more compact format doesn’t really buy much on modern CPUs and modern networks. See for example Cap’n Proto (whose inventor, kentonv, also works at Cloudflare) and flatbuffers.