> The person I responded to stated: "AMD server processors are so big these days that you could spend a quarter of your compute on QUIC without blinking an eye".
Ah, gotcha. Sorry about missing that context. I agree that nobody would be wasting that kind of compute on protocol overhead.
> I doubt ~7 Gbps per core is hitting their UDP stack bottlenecks, so I doubt that is what is actually limiting their performance.
Everything will limit the performance, and those limits will add up. Amdahl's Law is a harsh mistress.
> But then I would wonder why their network stacks are so slow since UDP handling is even more trivial than managing the QUIC data plane, so should not constitute a bottleneck in any sanely designed full stack.
A single cheap system call will likely cost you around 200 ns. A typical server would need like three system calls per packet (a poll, a read, and a write to ack it).
You can get much lower overhead with various kinds of kernel-bypass networking, but then the deployment story gets a lot harder.
> I only have a data plane implementation that I consider a toy going at ~5 Gbps with all optimizations turned off and having done zero of the planned performance work.
Right, but it sounds like both the current results and the projected ones are with neither encryption nor network I/O? I'm pretty sure that nobody else is publishing benchmark results from that kind of setup. They'd be sending the traffic over a network (at least looping back over a network card) using standard operating system functionality, as well as doing encryption. And still doing it at 7Gbps.
Three system calls per packet is not a serious design.
First of all, QUIC supports ack ranges which allow ack coalescing, so you do not need to average one ack per packet.
Second of all, QUIC supports frame packing, so you can piggyback on the opposing flow, though in these one-way benchmarks that should not matter.
Third of all, even 1 syscall per packet is not a serious design. You should be doing batch packet reads and writes to amortize that overhead and such APIs have existed for over a decade.
And again, these other aspects should apply zero meaningful performance impact when comparing to ~7 Gbps unless they, themselves, are outrageously slow. But then these would not be QUIC benchmarks, they are “my outrageously slow encryption and UDP stack” benchmarks. And it still falls back to my overarching point which is that ~7 Gbps per core for your end to end networking seems awfully slow. If QUIC is not your bottleneck, then why not benchmark non-bottlenecked systems. If QUIC is your bottleneck, then that seems really slow.
Ah, gotcha. Sorry about missing that context. I agree that nobody would be wasting that kind of compute on protocol overhead.
> I doubt ~7 Gbps per core is hitting their UDP stack bottlenecks, so I doubt that is what is actually limiting their performance.
Everything will limit the performance, and those limits will add up. Amdahl's Law is a harsh mistress.
> But then I would wonder why their network stacks are so slow since UDP handling is even more trivial than managing the QUIC data plane, so should not constitute a bottleneck in any sanely designed full stack.
A single cheap system call will likely cost you around 200 ns. A typical server would need like three system calls per packet (a poll, a read, and a write to ack it).
You can get much lower overhead with various kinds of kernel-bypass networking, but then the deployment story gets a lot harder.
> I only have a data plane implementation that I consider a toy going at ~5 Gbps with all optimizations turned off and having done zero of the planned performance work.
Right, but it sounds like both the current results and the projected ones are with neither encryption nor network I/O? I'm pretty sure that nobody else is publishing benchmark results from that kind of setup. They'd be sending the traffic over a network (at least looping back over a network card) using standard operating system functionality, as well as doing encryption. And still doing it at 7Gbps.