←back to thread

It's time to replace TCP in the datacenter (2023)

(arxiv.org)
188 points ilove_banh_mi | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 01:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.851s | source
Show context
7e ◴[18 Nov 24 04:37 UTC] No.42169749[source]▶
TCP was replaced in the data centers of certain FAANG companies years before this paper.
replies(3): >>42169769 #>>42169770 #>>42170102 #
wmf ◴[18 Nov 24 04:43 UTC] No.42169769[source]▶
If they keep it secret they don't get credit for it.
replies(1): >>42170116 #
andrewflnr ◴[18 Nov 24 06:03 UTC] No.42170116[source]▶
How do you figure? The right decision is the right decision, even if you don't tell people. (granting, for the sake of argument, that it is the right decision)
replies(2): >>42170254 #>>42171779 #
1. michaelt ◴[18 Nov 24 12:26 UTC] No.42171779[source]▶
When you are an outsider it's wise to take such claims with a grain of salt, because as the "secret" made its way to you, recounted by one person to another to another, there might have been an exaggeration, over-simplification or misunderstanding.

It's easy to imagine how, in the hands of tech journalists and youtubers optimising for clicks, "Google likes QUIC" and "Some ML clusters use infiniband" could get distorted into several faangs and the complete elimination of TCP.

replies(1): >>42173069 #
2. andrewflnr ◴[18 Nov 24 15:15 UTC] No.42173069[source]▶
True as far as it goes, but "they didn't actually do it" is a different story from "they did it secretly". The two claims exclude each other, so you can't really compare them in the context of "credit".
replies(1): >>42174888 #
3. michaelt ◴[18 Nov 24 17:49 UTC] No.42174888[source]▶
Allow me to rephrase.

I think the statement is not true, in a literal sense. I do not think there are multiple FAANG companies with data centres where TCP has been entirely eliminated.

But the statement is ambiguous enough you could come up with true interpretations, if you diluted it to the point of meaninglessness.

Therefore, without a clear public statement of what is being claimed, it's very difficult for me to be impressed.

replies(1): >>42175708 #
4. andrewflnr ◴[18 Nov 24 19:01 UTC] No.42175708{3}[source]▶
Very reasonable. It does seem dubious. In that case I just think my comment, itself already responding to a very different concern, was a weird place to raise that question. :)