Hidden latency in the Linux network stack

Re:Hidden latency in the Linux network stack by stingraycharles on Thursday April 07, 2016 @02:33PM (#11449466)

A bit pedantic, but it doesn't necessarily reduce the risk, but rather the impact: using 64 buckets would only have half as many connections go into a bad bucket. This, however, does not in any way decrease the chance of the problem occuring again.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hidden latency in the Linux network stack by sinxoveretothex on Thursday April 07, 2016 @04:11PM (#11450252)

Using twice as many buckets, there will be half as many destination ports in the same bucket (65535 / 32 ≈ 2048, 65535 / 64 ≈ 1024), but since the "bad" connections described in the blogpost all use the same destination port, it won't change anything wrt that.

It does, however, reduce the overall impact when all connections are considered.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hidden latency in the Linux network stack by jcoffland on Thursday April 07, 2016 @04:17PM (#11450304)

There is only a reduction in hash collisions if the destination ports are fairly evenly distributed. I just don't see how this helps at all in the case described.

[ Parent | on HN ]