hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com>
Subject Re: 0.90 latency performance, cdh3b4
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2011 06:22:17 GMT
Yeah... but with UDP you have to do packet reassembly yourself.

And do source quench and all kinds of things.

Been there.  Done that.  Don't recommend it unless it is your day job.

We built the Veoh peer to peer system on UDP.  It had compelling advantages
for us as we moved a terabit of data per second 5 years ago, but it was
distinctly non-trivial to get right.  The benefits we had included:

- we could make our flows very aggressive, but less aggressive than TCP.
That made them feel like smoke relative to web-surfing.  (not a benefit

- we could handle thousands of connections if necessary (not a benefit here)

- we could penetrate firewalls more easily by state spoofing (not a benefit

- our protocol did magical window reassembly from multiple sources (not a
benefit here)

But getting this to work was weeks of work and months of testing with
thousands of different clients.  I wouldn't want to repeat that without
serious reasons.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com>wrote:

> > What do you see here D?
> I am not sure. I am not very good at understanding network frames. but
> tcp kind of spends a lot of resources to ensure the flow. While udp
> wouldn't bother with all that nonsense.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message