4 ms·
It feels so strange that 768k entities is large enough to break infrastructure. In my day to day I’ll work on tables with billions of rows with no issue.
by kiernanmcgowan 7y ago
It feels so strange that 768k entities is large enough to break infrastructure.
In my day to day I’ll work on tables with billions of rows with no issue.
- magila 7y agoThe difference is that the routing table has to be stored in TCAM which is a very specialized and expensive type of storage.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- azernik 7y agoAs your latency requirements go down, feasible storage sizes also go down. In this case the latency requirement is quite low: any time delay on lookup is directly added to packet latency. So the better comparison would be L1 or L2 cache, rather than on-disk storage for a database.
- dingo_bat 7y agoTCAM lookup times are not dependent on number of entries. It is always constant.
- ycombonator 7y agoIntro to TCAMs https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/