3 ms·
Somebody made a claim that TCP isn't high performance without specifying what that means, I gave a counterexample of just how high performance TCP is picking so
by nh2 8mo ago
Somebody made a claim that TCP isn't high performance without specifying what that means, I gave a counterexample of just how high performance TCP is picking some arbitrary notion of "high performance".
Almost like it makes the point that arguing about "high performance" is useless without saying what that means.
That said:
> you're not going to measure how multiplexing multiple data streams onto one TCP connection
Of course not: When I want to argue against "TCP is not a high performance protocol", why would I want to measure some other protocol that multiplexes connections over TCP? That is not measuring the performance of TCP.
I could conjure any protocol that requires acknowledgement from the other side for each emitted packet before sending the next, and then claim "UDP is not high performance" when running that over UDP - that doesn't make sense.
- wtallis 8mo ago> I gave a counterexample of just how high performance TCP is picking some arbitrary notion of "high performance". You gave a vacuous example of a measurement of packets going nowhere. When zero work gets done, you might as well call it infinitely fast.
- nh2 8mo agoNo, the example exercises the full TCP protocol including all its logic. There have been plenty of examples of protocols where that is far from infinitely fast and does not scale even on localhost, e.g. with OpenVPN or any protocol that requires full acknowledgements from the other side before sending more.