4 ms·
I just think they meant reliable in a 'how to dimension to greatly reduce the possible loss'. No protocol is 'fully' reliable in all dimensions (latency, messag
by touisteur 7y ago
I just think they meant reliable in a 'how to dimension to greatly reduce the possible loss'. No protocol is 'fully' reliable in all dimensions (latency, message loss, throughput). Sometimes you benchmark your exact physical conf and you add large margins, add some packet loss detection mechanisms, eventually retries (but if your latency requirements are hard no dice) or duplicate the physical layer (oh god, de-duplication at 10GbE...) or just accept some losses.
I just meant 'reliable is a spectrum'...
- p1necone 7y agoReliability in the context of networking protocols means a specific thing to me - guaranteeing packet delivery (to the extent that it is physically possible of course). This does seem to be a technical term with a defined meaning that matches my assumption too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(computer_networking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(computer_networki...
- greglindahl 7y agoTry considering what the authors of the paper mean.
- p1necone 7y agoIf the authors of the paper are using a term that already has a specific meaning in the area they are working in, but meaning something different from that then they are making a mistake.