5 ms·
"I didn't bother to listen, but I think it is wrong so there" is never really a useful discussion position. The linked page describes a fairly specific set of
by dspillett 7y ago
"I didn't bother to listen, but I think it is wrong so there" is never really a useful discussion position.
The linked page describes a fairly specific set of needs that the claim is effectively true for, though only from the client's point of view.
- ycombobreaker 7y agoAnything (hardware or software) in the network stack advertising "zero latency" is a lie. The idea or implementation may have merit, but it is best to avoid opening with a trivial impossibility.
- why_only_15 7y agoi don't think most people read "zero latency" and think literally 0 ns of latency, because, as you said, it is trivially impossible. If you read any length of documentation you will see how the latency is orders of magnitude less than sending it out directly. That's close enough to zero latency for me.
- dspillett 7y agoYes. Like the random access latency of NVMe SSDs, It isn't zero, but it is practically zero compared to more "traditional" storage tech.
- fourmyle 7y agoIt's nearly as dumb as "serverless"