Maintaining 65k open connections in a single Ruby process

Re:Maintaining 65k open connections in a single Ruby process by masklinn on Monday October 29, 2018 @06:36PM (#18332239)

> Can you explain more how you get to 2^48? I thought the protocol specification only reserved two bytes for the port and so getting over 65536 connections would either require using more IP adresses or more ports.

32b IP * 16 bit port?

> You are definitely right that this is not a "full" solution for the c10k problem, but it is an interesting start IMO.

It's not a solution to the C10K at all, because the C10K problem is outdated and was trivialised a decade back. Whatsapp was doing 2 million connections on a single box (with resources to spare) back in 2012: https://blog.whatsapp.com/196/1-million-is-so-2011 and folks were working on C10M: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/13/the-secret-to-10-m...

> Maybe for next month I'll implement basic epoll functionality to make an echo server or something :)

Epoll is bad, why would you want to do that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining 65k open connections in a single Ruby process by meguest on Monday October 29, 2018 @08:18PM (#18332914)

> epoll is bad

Source please! I'm genuine - what is bad about it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining 65k open connections in a single Ruby process by masklinn on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @05:04AM (#18334890)

https://idea.popcount.org/2017-02-20-epoll-is-fundamentally-... and https://idea.popcount.org/2017-03-20-epoll-is-fundamentally-... is a pretty good baseline.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining 65k open connections in a single Ruby process by kjeetgill on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @01:24AM (#18334155)

It comes up all the time but I'm not qualified to speak to it off the top of my head.

Google comparisons with kqueue from BSD and iocp on Windows.

[ Parent | on HN ]