3 ms·
Isn't it a pretty good reason? gRPC is terrible in a datacenter context without Google's internal TCP fixes that Linux won't adopt (and which have been advocat
by jumpingmice 7y ago
Isn't it a pretty good reason? gRPC is terrible in a datacenter context without Google's internal TCP fixes that Linux won't adopt (and which have been advocated for in numerous conference papers since at least 2009). If they are steadfast cavemen what other workaround exists?
- derefr 7y agoWhat parts of gRPC are fixed by using it over QUIC vs. TCP (presuming intra-DC traffic and equally long-lived flows)?
- jumpingmice 7y agoLatency caused by packet loss. TCP needs microsecond timestamps and the ability to tune RTOmin down to 1ms before it is suitable for use in a datacenter. With the mainline kernel TCP stack you are looking at, at a minimum, a 20ms penalty whenever a packet is dropped.
- greglindahl 7y agoThe standard workaround is to send short messages using UDP and long ones using TCP.
- ToFab123 7y agoApparently Microsoft is considering gRPC as an future replacement for WCF, so that might change. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055487