News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @10:36PM (#37924280)
1. In a single data center scale computing system, though?

2. Use some bytes outside of the header?

3. I get the impression this needs hardware to really use well anyway.

Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by kortilla on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @01:23AM (#37925087)
2. Don’t do this. It causes reordering between flows and software doesn’t like out of order packets.
Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by Zandikar on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @10:30AM (#37929207)
I get the impression that if this comment chain continues we're just gonna reinvent UDP
Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by wmf on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @01:16PM (#37931692)
Exactly. QUIC and Falcon use UDP because they basically have to. You can't avoid it.
Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by tuetuopay on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @10:39AM (#37929353)
1. Especially in the datacenter. When you add VMs to the mix you get LOADS of devices to address. Add on top that a single device has multiple connections (management, internet, storage, etc), you'd run out of capacity almost instantly.

2. The point is to find some bytes that are constant for a given logical stream of related packets. Taking bytes outside of the header means taking bytes from the payload, that is by definition not deterministic. That's why everything identifies flows using the IPs + ports + protocol.

Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by Dylan16807 on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @01:05PM (#37931553)
> Especially in the datacenter.

Okay, but my point there was saying "Google has millions of servers" isn't relevant, we're not looking at the entire company.

Even with a few addresses per VM, how many racks do you need to put into the same shared-compute mass? One data center is the upper limit, but it doesn't have to be the entire data center.

Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by tuetuopay on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @03:45PM (#37933786)
Back of the envelope math using modern hypervisors that can fit loads of vms in a single U

- let’s put 500 vms on a single one. with 128c256t CPUs it’s easy

- say you can fit 30 of those in a single rack (the common rack is 42U) due to power constraints

- and place 10 of those racks

That’s 500 x 30 x 10 = 150000 nodes to address. With 10 racks you already blow past the scaling limits of the common datacenter switch when it comes to MAC addresses. Here are the limits for Cisco’s Nexus 9000 series, a very common datacenter switch: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/datacenter/ne...

Re:Google opens Falcon, a reliable low-latency hardware tran... by cereal_cable on Wednesday October 18, 2023 @11:34PM (#37938025)
Plus layer 2 switches when they don't know the destination port will flood. With so many hosts that would be absolutely horrific.

I've seen computers at moderately sized LAN parties (talking 100 nodes, far from the large or even massive events) that were literally crippled by the broadcast traffic. At some point the flooding and layer 2 discovery (ARP) would do the same as well.

Limiting the broadcast domains with layer 3 really makes the Internet possible. Sure, you can have less overhead and simply do layer 2 only, and really it is completely possible. It's just such a rare use case that it in practice isn't important enough to actually do.