5 ms·

If you need it and have the ability to maintain your own tree shoot me a note and I will put you in contact with the right folks. Not ready for unrestricted us

by kev009 8y ago

If you need it and have the ability to maintain your own tree shoot me a note and I will put you in contact with the right folks. Not ready for unrestricted use but it is usable and in wide use. The RACK stack is in 12.0 and provides many wanted benefits outside of BBR's proficiency against channel loss. I can blog or something about how to build and use it if interested.

ggm 8y ago
"need" is moot. I want it, but in general release. I don't want to have to maintain kernel independently unless I get a strong signal of other benefit (eg better ZFS/Memory tuning) I run a clutch of Dells, on FB and they're moving to Debian for other reasons, where I get BBR. I would have fought harder to retain them on BSD if we'd had signs the network stack was getting the same amount of attention. When VJ moved to coding against Linux instead of BSD, I think the writing was on the wall. When Grenvilles team in Melbourne disintegrated, and that source of TCP energy dissipated, the writing pushed the wall over. (I think they moved to netflix)
- kev009 8y ago
  Shrug, if you are just a bystander it does make sense to go wherever the spectacle is. There is a competent team working on TCP at Netflix, led by Randall Stewart. They collaborate regularly with VJ and his Google team and the IETF tsvwg.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- markjdb 8y ago
  What are the "other reasons"?
  - ggm 8y ago
    We wound up on Debian for some linodes in the field and found mixed os maintenance a hassle. We run the BSD core because we're a three person research activity run by dinosaurs who had BSD systems in the eighties and stuck to them all the time since. Now we are exposed to things like iscsi and ceph and Hadoop and elk stack.. and it's just too bloody hard to survive in ports on freebsd for this stuff. It's become corner case. BBR is a case in point. Data fetch to the home nodes on bsd from Asia, Europe and the USA (we're in oz) was two to three times slower than via a Debian node because of it.

by kev009 8y ago

ggm 8y ago

"need" is moot. I want it, but in general release. I don't want to have to maintain kernel independently unless I get a strong signal of other benefit (eg better ZFS/Memory tuning) I run a clutch of Dells, on FB and they're moving to Debian for other reasons, where I get BBR. I would have fought harder to retain them on BSD if we'd had signs the network stack was getting the same amount of attention. When VJ moved to coding against Linux instead of BSD, I think the writing was on the wall. When Grenvilles team in Melbourne disintegrated, and that source of TCP energy dissipated, the writing pushed the wall over. (I think they moved to netflix)

kev009 8y ago
Shrug, if you are just a bystander it does make sense to go wherever the spectacle is. There is a competent team working on TCP at Netflix, led by Randall Stewart. They collaborate regularly with VJ and his Google team and the IETF tsvwg.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
markjdb 8y ago
What are the "other reasons"?
- ggm 8y ago
  We wound up on Debian for some linodes in the field and found mixed os maintenance a hassle. We run the BSD core because we're a three person research activity run by dinosaurs who had BSD systems in the eighties and stuck to them all the time since. Now we are exposed to things like iscsi and ceph and Hadoop and elk stack.. and it's just too bloody hard to survive in ports on freebsd for this stuff. It's become corner case. BBR is a case in point. Data fetch to the home nodes on bsd from Asia, Europe and the USA (we're in oz) was two to three times slower than via a Debian node because of it.