It's always TCP_NODELAY(brooker.co.za)
brooker.co.za
It's always TCP_NODELAY
https://brooker.co.za/blog/2024/05/09/nagle.html
275 comments
I've fixed multiple latency issues due to nagle's multiple times in my career. It's the first thing I jump to. I feel like the logic behind it is sound, but it just doesn't work for some workloads. It should be something that an engineer needs to be forced to set while creating a socket, instead of letting the OS choose a default. I think that's the main issue. Not that it's a good / bad option but that there is a setting that people might not know about that manipulates how data is sent over the wire so aggressively.
Same here. I have a hobby that on any RPC framework I encounter, I file a Github issue "did you think of TCP_NODELAY or can this framework do only 20 calls per second?".
So far, it's found a bug every single time.
Some examples: https://cloud-haskell.atlassian.net/browse/DP-108 or https://github.com/agentm/curryer/issues/3
I disagree on the "not a good / bad option" though.
It's a kernel-side heuristic for "magically fixing" badly behaved applications.
As the article states, no sensible application does 1-byte network write() syscalls. Software that does that should be fixed.
It makes sense only in the case when you are the kernel sysadmin and somehow cannot fix the software that runs on the machine, maybe for team-political reasons. I claim that's pretty rare.
For all other cases, it makes sane software extra complicated: You need to explicitly opt-out of odd magic that makes poorly-written software have slightly more throughput, and that makes correctly-written software have huge, surprising latency.
John Nagle says here and in linked threads that Delayed Acks are even worse. I agree. But the Send/Send/Receive receive pattern that Nagle's Algorithm degrades is a totally valid and common use case, including anything that does pipelined RPC over TCP.
Both Delayed Acks and Nagle's Algorithm should be opt-in, in my opinion. It should be called TCP_DELAY, which you can opt-into if you can't be asked to implement basic userspace buffering.
People shouldn't /need/ to know about these. Make the default case be the unsurprising one.
So far, it's found a bug every single time.
Some examples: https://cloud-haskell.atlassian.net/browse/DP-108 or https://github.com/agentm/curryer/issues/3
I disagree on the "not a good / bad option" though.
It's a kernel-side heuristic for "magically fixing" badly behaved applications.
As the article states, no sensible application does 1-byte network write() syscalls. Software that does that should be fixed.
It makes sense only in the case when you are the kernel sysadmin and somehow cannot fix the software that runs on the machine, maybe for team-political reasons. I claim that's pretty rare.
For all other cases, it makes sane software extra complicated: You need to explicitly opt-out of odd magic that makes poorly-written software have slightly more throughput, and that makes correctly-written software have huge, surprising latency.
John Nagle says here and in linked threads that Delayed Acks are even worse. I agree. But the Send/Send/Receive receive pattern that Nagle's Algorithm degrades is a totally valid and common use case, including anything that does pipelined RPC over TCP.
Both Delayed Acks and Nagle's Algorithm should be opt-in, in my opinion. It should be called TCP_DELAY, which you can opt-into if you can't be asked to implement basic userspace buffering.
People shouldn't /need/ to know about these. Make the default case be the unsurprising one.
"As the article states, no sensible application does 1-byte network write() syscalls." - the problem that this flag was meant to solve was that when a user was typing at a remote terminal, which used to be a pretty common use case in the 80's (think telnet), there was one byte available to send at a time over a network with a bandwidth (and latency) severely limited compared to today's networks. The user was happy to see that the typed character arrived to the other side. This problem is no longer significant, and the world has changed so that this flag has become a common issue in many current use cases.
Was terminal software poorly written? I don't feel comfortable to make such judgement. It was designed for a constrained environment with different priorities.
Anyway, I agree with the rest of your comment.
Was terminal software poorly written? I don't feel comfortable to make such judgement. It was designed for a constrained environment with different priorities.
Anyway, I agree with the rest of your comment.
> when a user was typing at a remote terminal, which used to be a pretty common use case in the 80's
Still is for some. I’m probably working in a terminal on an ssh connection to a remote system for 80% of my work day.
Still is for some. I’m probably working in a terminal on an ssh connection to a remote system for 80% of my work day.
If you're working on a distributed system, most of the traffic is not going to be your SSH session though.
sure, but we do so with much better networks than in the 80s. The extra overhead is not going to matter when even a bad network nowadays is measured in megabits per second per user. The 80s had no such luxury.
First world thinking.
Not really. Buildout in less-developed areas tends to be done with newer equipment. (E.g., some areas in Africa never got a POTS network, but went straight to wireless.)
Yes, but isn't the effect on the network a different one now? With encryption and authentication, your single character input becomes amplified significantly long before it reaches the TCP stack. Extra overhead from the TCP header is still there, but far less significant in percentage terms, so it's best to address the problem at the application layer.
the difference is that with kb/s speed, 40x of 10 characters per second overhead mattered. now, humans aren't nearly fast enough to contest a network.
Why? What do you do?
It was not just a bandwidth issue. I remember my first encounter with the Internet was on a HP workstation in Germany connected to South-Africa with telnet. The connection went over a Datex-P (X25) 2400 Baud line. The issue with X25 nets was that it was expensive. The monthly rent was around 500 DM and each packet sent also had to been paid a few cents. You would really try to optimize the use of the line and interactive rsh or telnet trafic was definitely not ideal.
> As the article states, no sensible application does 1-byte network write() syscalls. Software that does that should be fixed.
Yes! And worse, those that do are not gonna be “fixed” by delays either. In this day and age with fast internets, a syscall per byte will bottleneck the CPU way before it’ll saturate the network path. The cpu limit when I’ve been tuning buffers have been somewhere in the 4k-32k range for 10Gbps ish.
> Both Delayed Acks and Nagle's Algorithm should be opt-in, in my opinion.
Agreed, it causes more problems than it solves and is very outdated. Now, the challenge is rolling out such a change as smoothly as possible, which requires coordination and a lot of trivia knowledge of legacy systems. Migrations are never trivial.
Yes! And worse, those that do are not gonna be “fixed” by delays either. In this day and age with fast internets, a syscall per byte will bottleneck the CPU way before it’ll saturate the network path. The cpu limit when I’ve been tuning buffers have been somewhere in the 4k-32k range for 10Gbps ish.
> Both Delayed Acks and Nagle's Algorithm should be opt-in, in my opinion.
Agreed, it causes more problems than it solves and is very outdated. Now, the challenge is rolling out such a change as smoothly as possible, which requires coordination and a lot of trivia knowledge of legacy systems. Migrations are never trivial.
I doubt the libc default in established systems can change now, but newer languages and libraries can learn the lesson and do the right thing. For instance, Go sets TCP_NODELAY by default: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34181846
The problem with making it opt in is that the point of the protocol was to fix apps that, while they perform fine for the developer on his LAN, would be hell on internet routers. So the people who benefit are the ones who don't know what they are doing and only use the defaults.
It's very easy to end up with small writes. E.g.
If you have to combine the two into one flat frame, you're looking at allocating and copying memory.
Linux has something called corking: you can "cork" a socket (so that it doesn't transmit), write some stuff to it multiple times and "uncork". It's extra syscalls though, yuck.
You could use a buffered stream where you control flushes: basically another copying layer.
1. Write four bytes (length of frame)
2. Write the frame (write the frame itself)
If you have to combine the two into one flat frame, you're looking at allocating and copying memory.
Linux has something called corking: you can "cork" a socket (so that it doesn't transmit), write some stuff to it multiple times and "uncork". It's extra syscalls though, yuck.
You could use a buffered stream where you control flushes: basically another copying layer.
Thanks for the reminder to set this on the new framework I’m working on. :)
I have a hobby that on any RPC framework I encounter, I file a Github issue "did you think of TCP_NODELAY or can this framework do only 20 calls per second?".
Would one not also get clobbered by all the sys calls for doing many small packets? It feels like coalescing in userspace is a much better strategy all round if that's desired, but I'm not super experienced.
Oh hey! It’s been a while how’re you?!
> It should be something that an engineer needs to be forced to set while creating a socket, instead of letting the OS choose a default.
If the intention is mostly to fix applications with bad `write`-behavior, this would make setting TCP_DELAY a pretty exotic option - you would need a software engineer to be both smart enough to know to set this option, but not smart enough to distribute their write-calls well and/or not go for writing their own (probably better fitted) application-specific version of Nagles.
If the intention is mostly to fix applications with bad `write`-behavior, this would make setting TCP_DELAY a pretty exotic option - you would need a software engineer to be both smart enough to know to set this option, but not smart enough to distribute their write-calls well and/or not go for writing their own (probably better fitted) application-specific version of Nagles.
I agree, it has been fairly well known to disable Nagle's Algorithm in HFT/low latency trading circles for quite some time now (like > 15 years). It's one of the first things I look for.
I was setting TCP_NODELAY at Bear Stearns for custom networking code circa 1994 or so.
This is why I love this place
Surely serious HFT systems bypass TCP altogether now days. In that world, every millisecond of latency can potentially cost a lot of money.
These are the guys that use microwave links to connect to exchanges because fibre-optics have too much latency.
These are the guys that use microwave links to connect to exchanges because fibre-optics have too much latency.
They still need to send their orders to an exchange, which is often done with FIX protocol over TCP (some exchanges have binary protocols which are faster than FIX, but the ones I'm aware of still use TCP)
Same in M&E / vfx
What you really want is for the delay to be n microseconds, but there’s no good way to do that except putting your own user space buffering in front of the system calls (user space works better, unless you have something like io_uring amortizing system call times)
linux has auto-corking (and I know of no way to disable it) that will do these short delays on small packets even if the dev doesn't want it
I'd rather have portable TCP_CORK
Cork is probably how you’d implement this in userspace so why not both?
The logic is really for things like Telnet sessions. IIRC that was the whole motivation.
And for block writes!
The Nagler turns a series of 4KB pages over TCP into a stream of MTU sized packets, rather than a short packet aligned to the end of each page.
The Nagler turns a series of 4KB pages over TCP into a stream of MTU sized packets, rather than a short packet aligned to the end of each page.
With some vendors you have to solve it like a policy problem, via a LD_PRELOAD shim.
> that an engineer needs to be forced to set while creating a socket
Because there aren't enough steps in setting up sockets! Haha.
I suspect that what would happen is that many of the programming language run-times in the world which have easier-to-use socket abstractions would pick a default and hide it from the programmer, so as not to expose an extra step.
Because there aren't enough steps in setting up sockets! Haha.
I suspect that what would happen is that many of the programming language run-times in the world which have easier-to-use socket abstractions would pick a default and hide it from the programmer, so as not to expose an extra step.
> I feel like the logic behind it is sound, but it just doesn't work for some workloads.
The logic is only sound for interactive plaintext typing workloads. It should have been turned off by default 20 years ago, let alone now.
The logic is only sound for interactive plaintext typing workloads. It should have been turned off by default 20 years ago, let alone now.
Remember that IPv4 original "target replacement date" (as it was only an "experimental" protocol) was 1990...
And a common thing in many more complex/advanced protocols was to explicitly delineate "messages", which avoids the issue of Nagle's algorithm altogether.
And a common thing in many more complex/advanced protocols was to explicitly delineate "messages", which avoids the issue of Nagle's algorithm altogether.
Same here. My first job out of college was at a database company. Queries at the client side of the client-server based database were slow. It was thought the database server was slow as hardware back then was pretty pathetic. I traced it down to the network driver and found out the default setting of TCP_NODELAY was off. I looked like a hero when turning on that option and the db benchmarks jumped up.
Not when creating a socket - when sending data. When sending data, you should indicate whether this data block prefers high throughput or low latency.
You’re right re: making delay explicit, but also crappy use the space networking tools don’t show whether no_delay is enabled on sockets.
Last time I had to do some Linux stuff, maybe 10 years ago you had to write a systemtap program. I guess it’s EBNF now. But I bet the userspace tools still suck.
Last time I had to do some Linux stuff, maybe 10 years ago you had to write a systemtap program. I guess it’s EBNF now. But I bet the userspace tools still suck.
> use the space
Userspace. Sorry, was using voice dictation.
Userspace. Sorry, was using voice dictation.
The takeaway is odd. Clearly Nagle's Algorithm was an attempt at batched writes. It doesn't matter what your hardware or network or application or use-case or anything is; in some cases, batched writes are better.
Lots of computing today uses batched writes. Network applications benefit from it too. Newer higher-level protocols like QUIC do batching of writes, effectively moving all of TCP's independent connection and error handling into userspace, so the protocol can move as much data into the application as fast as it can, and let the application (rather than a host tcp/ip stack, router, etc) worry about the connection and error handling of individual streams.
Once our networks become saturated the way they were in the old days, Nagle's algorithm will return in the form of a QUIC modification, probably deeper in the application code, to wait to send a QUIC packet until some criteria is reached. Everything in technology is re-invented once either hardware or software reaches a bottleneck (and they always will as their capabilities don't grow at the same rate).
(the other case besides bandwidth where Nagle's algorithm is useful is if you're saturating Packets Per Second (PPS) from tiny packets)
Lots of computing today uses batched writes. Network applications benefit from it too. Newer higher-level protocols like QUIC do batching of writes, effectively moving all of TCP's independent connection and error handling into userspace, so the protocol can move as much data into the application as fast as it can, and let the application (rather than a host tcp/ip stack, router, etc) worry about the connection and error handling of individual streams.
Once our networks become saturated the way they were in the old days, Nagle's algorithm will return in the form of a QUIC modification, probably deeper in the application code, to wait to send a QUIC packet until some criteria is reached. Everything in technology is re-invented once either hardware or software reaches a bottleneck (and they always will as their capabilities don't grow at the same rate).
(the other case besides bandwidth where Nagle's algorithm is useful is if you're saturating Packets Per Second (PPS) from tiny packets)
The difference between QUIC and TCP is the original sin of TCP (and its predecessor) - that of emulating an async serial port connection, with no visible messaging layer.
It meant that you could use a physical teletypewriter to connect to services (simplified description - slap a modem on a serial port, dial into a TIP, write host address and port number, voila), but it also means that TCP has no idea of message boundaries, and while you can push some of that knowledge now the early software didn't.
In comparison, QUIC and many other non-TCP protocols (SCTP, TP4) explicitly provide for messaging boundaries - your interface to the system isn't based on emulated serial ports but on messages that might at most get reassembled.
It meant that you could use a physical teletypewriter to connect to services (simplified description - slap a modem on a serial port, dial into a TIP, write host address and port number, voila), but it also means that TCP has no idea of message boundaries, and while you can push some of that knowledge now the early software didn't.
In comparison, QUIC and many other non-TCP protocols (SCTP, TP4) explicitly provide for messaging boundaries - your interface to the system isn't based on emulated serial ports but on messages that might at most get reassembled.
It's kind of incredible to think how many things in computers and electronics turn out to just be a serial port.
One day, some future engineer is going to ask why their warp core diagnostic port runs at 9600 8n1.
One day, some future engineer is going to ask why their warp core diagnostic port runs at 9600 8n1.
Because of Roman chariot horses ass width or something like that XD
Yes but it seems this particular implementation is using a heuristic for how to batch that made some assumptions that didn't pan out.
batching needs to be application controlled rather than protocol controlled. the protocol doesn't have enough context to batch correctly.
What about the opposite, disable delayed acks.
The problem is the pathological behavior when tinygram prevention interacts with delayed acks. There is an exposed option to turn off tinygram prevention(TCP_NODELAY), how would you tun off delayed acks instead? Say if you wanted to benchmark all four combinations and see what works best.
doing a little research I found:
linux has the TCP_QUICKACK socket option but you have to set it every time you receive. there is also /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_delack_min and /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ato_min
freebsd has net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack and net.inet.tcp.delacktime
The problem is the pathological behavior when tinygram prevention interacts with delayed acks. There is an exposed option to turn off tinygram prevention(TCP_NODELAY), how would you tun off delayed acks instead? Say if you wanted to benchmark all four combinations and see what works best.
doing a little research I found:
linux has the TCP_QUICKACK socket option but you have to set it every time you receive. there is also /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_delack_min and /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ato_min
freebsd has net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack and net.inet.tcp.delacktime
TCP_QUICKACK does fix the worst version of the problem, but doesn't fix the entire problem. Nagles algorithm will still wait for up to one round-trip time before sending data (at least as specified in the RFC), which is extra latency with nearly no added value.
> linux has the TCP_QUICKACK socket option but you have to set it every time you receive
Right. What were they thinking? Why would you want it off only some of the time?
Right. What were they thinking? Why would you want it off only some of the time?
In CentOS/RedHat you can add `quickack 1` to the end of a route to tell it to disable delayed acks for that route.
And with systemd >= 253 you can set it as part of the network config to have it be applied automatically.
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/25906
Apparently you have time to "do a little research" but not to read the entire article you're reacting to? It specifically mentions TCP_QUICKACK.
In a world where bandwidth was limited, and the packet size minimum was 64 bytes plus an inter-frame gap (it still is for most Ethernet networks), sending a TCP packet for literally every byte wasted a huge amount of bandwidth. The same goes for sending empty acks.
On the other hand, my general position is: it's not TCP_NODELAY, it's TCP.
On the other hand, my general position is: it's not TCP_NODELAY, it's TCP.
I'd just love a protocol that has a built in mechanism for realizing the other side of the pipe disconnected for any reason.
That's possible in circuit switched networking with various types of supervision, but packet switched networking has taken over because it's much less expensive to implement.
Attempts to add connection monitoring usually make things worse --- if you need to reroute a cable, and one or both ends of the cable will detect a cable disconnection and close user sockets, that's not great, now you do a quick change with a small period of data loss but otherwise minor interruption; all of the established connections will be dropped.
Attempts to add connection monitoring usually make things worse --- if you need to reroute a cable, and one or both ends of the cable will detect a cable disconnection and close user sockets, that's not great, now you do a quick change with a small period of data loss but otherwise minor interruption; all of the established connections will be dropped.
To re-word everyone else's comments - "Disconnected" is not well-defined in any network.
> To re-word everyone else's comments - "Disconnected" is not well-defined in any network.
Parent said disconnected pipe, not network. It's sufficiently well-definable there.
Parent said disconnected pipe, not network. It's sufficiently well-definable there.
I think it's a distinction without a difference in this case. You can't know if the reason your water stopped is because the water is shut off, the pipe broke, or it's just slow.
When all you have to go on is "I stopped getting packets" the best you can do is give up after a bit. TCP keepsalives do kinda suck and are full of interesting choices that don't seem to have passed the test of time. But they are there and if you control both sides of the connection you can be sure they work.
When all you have to go on is "I stopped getting packets" the best you can do is give up after a bit. TCP keepsalives do kinda suck and are full of interesting choices that don't seem to have passed the test of time. But they are there and if you control both sides of the connection you can be sure they work.
There's a crucial difference in fact, which is that the peer you're defining connectedness to is a single well-defined peer that is directly connected to you, which "The Network" is not.
As for the analogy, uh, this ain't water. Monitor the line voltage or the fiber brightness or something, it'll tell you very quickly if the other endpoint is disconnected. It's up to the physical layer to provide a mechanism to detect disconnection, but it's not somehow impossible or rocket science...
As for the analogy, uh, this ain't water. Monitor the line voltage or the fiber brightness or something, it'll tell you very quickly if the other endpoint is disconnected. It's up to the physical layer to provide a mechanism to detect disconnection, but it's not somehow impossible or rocket science...
In a packet-switched network there isn't one connection between you and your peer. Even if you had line monitoring that wouldn't be enough on its own to tell you that your packet can't get there -- "routing around the problem" isn't just a turn of phrase. On the opposite end networks are best-effort so even if the line is up you might get stuck in congestion which to you might as well be dropped.
You can get the guarantees you want with a circuit switched network but there's a lot of trade-offs namely bandwidth and self-healing.
You can get the guarantees you want with a circuit switched network but there's a lot of trade-offs namely bandwidth and self-healing.
Well, isn't that already how it works? If I physically unplug my ethernet cable, won't TCP-related syscalls start failing immediately?
Last time I looked the behavior differed; some OSs will immediately reset TCP connections which were using an interface when it goes away, others will wait until a packet is attempted.
I ran into this with websockets. At least under certain browser/os pairs you won't ever receive a close event if you disconnect from wifi. I guess you need to manually monitor ping/pong messages and close it yourself after a timeout?
Probably, but I don't know how the physical layers work underneath. But regardless, it's trivial to just monitor something constantly to ensure the connection is still there, you just need the hardware and protocol support.
Modern Ethernet has what it calls "fast link pulses"; every 16ms there's some traffic to check. It's telephones that use voltage for hook detection.
However, that only applies to the two ends of that cable, not between you and the datacentre on the other side of the world.
However, that only applies to the two ends of that cable, not between you and the datacentre on the other side of the world.
What if I don't want all my SSH connections to drop when my WiFi stutters for a second when I open my microwave?
> I don't know how it works... it's trivial
Come on now...
And it is easy to monitor, it is just an application concern not a L3-L4 one.
Come on now...
And it is easy to monitor, it is just an application concern not a L3-L4 one.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40316922 : "pipe" is L3, the network links are L2.
That's really really hard. For a full, guaranteed way to do this we'd need circuit switching (or circuit switching emulation). It's pretty expensive to do in packet networks - each flow would need to be tracked by each middle box, so a lot more RAM at every hop, and probably a lot more processing power. If we go with circuit establishment, its also kind of expensive and breaks the whole "distributed, decentralized, self-healing network" property of the Internet.
It's possible to do better than TCP these days, bandwidth is much much less constrained than it was when TCP was designed, but it's still a hard problem to do detection of pipe disconnected for any reason other than timeouts (which we already have).
It's possible to do better than TCP these days, bandwidth is much much less constrained than it was when TCP was designed, but it's still a hard problem to do detection of pipe disconnected for any reason other than timeouts (which we already have).
Several of the "reliable UDP" protocols I have worked on in the past have had a heartbeat mechanism that is specifically for detecting this. If you haven't sent a packet down the wire in 10-100 milliseconds, you will send an extra packet just to say you're still there.
It's very useful to do this in intra-datacenter protocols.
It's very useful to do this in intra-datacenter protocols.
These types of keepalives are usually best handled at the application protocol layer where you can design in more knobs and respond in different ways. Otherwise you may see unexpected interactions between different keepalive mechanisms in different parts of the protocol stack.
Like TCP keepalives?
If the feature already technically exists in TCP, it's either broken or disabled by default, which is pretty much the same as not having it.
keepalives are an optional TCP feature so they are not necessarily supported by all TCP implementations and therefor default to off even when supported.
Where is it off? Most linux distros have it on it’s just the default kickoff timer is ridiculously long (like 2 hours iirc). Besides, TCP keepalives won't help with the issue at hand and were put in for totally different purpose (gc'ing idle connections). Most of the time you don't even need them because the other side will send RST packet if it already closed the socket.
AFAIK, all Linux distros plus Windows and macOS have TCP keepalives off by default as mandated by the RFC 1122. Even when they are optionally turned on using SO_KEEPALIVE, the interval defaults to two hours because that is the minimum default interval allowed by spec. That can then be optionally reduced with something like /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time (system wide) or TCP_KEEPIDLE (per socket).
By default, completely idle TCP connections will stay alive indefinitely from the perspective of both peers even if their physical connection is severed.
By default, completely idle TCP connections will stay alive indefinitely from the perspective of both peers even if their physical connection is severed.
Implementors MAY include "keep-alives" in their TCP
implementations, although this practice is not universally
accepted. If keep-alives are included, the application MUST
be able to turn them on or off for each TCP connection, and
they MUST default to off.
Keep-alive packets MUST only be sent when no data or
acknowledgement packets have been received for the
connection within an interval. This interval MUST be
configurable and MUST default to no less than two hours.
OK you're right - it's coming back to me now. I've been spoiled by software that enables keep-alive on sockets.
So we need a protocol with some kind of non-optional default-enabled keepalive.
You're conflating all optional TCP features of all operating systems, network devices, and RFCs together. This lack of nuance fails to appreciate that different applications have different needs for how they use TCP: ( server | client ) x ( one way | chatty bidirectional | idle tinygram | mixed ). If a feature needs to be used on a particular connection, then use it. ;)
If a socket is closed properly there'll be a FIN and the other side can learn about it by polling the socket.
If the network connection is lost due to external circumstances (say your modem crashes) then how would that information propagate from the point of failure to the remote end on an idle connection? Either you actively probe (keepalives) and risk false positives or you wait until you hear again from the other side, risking false negatives.
If the network connection is lost due to external circumstances (say your modem crashes) then how would that information propagate from the point of failure to the remote end on an idle connection? Either you actively probe (keepalives) and risk false positives or you wait until you hear again from the other side, risking false negatives.
It gets even worse - routing changes causing traffic to blackhole would still be undetectable without a timeout mechanism, since probes and responses would be lost.
> If the network connection is lost due to external circumstances (say your modem crashes) then how would that information propagate from the point of failure to the remote end on an idle connection?
Observe the line voltage? If it gets cut then you have a problem...
> Either you actively probe (keepalives) and risk false positives
What false positives? Are you thinking there's an adversary on the other side?
Observe the line voltage? If it gets cut then you have a problem...
> Either you actively probe (keepalives) and risk false positives
What false positives? Are you thinking there's an adversary on the other side?
This is a L2 vs L3 thing.
Most network links absolutely will detect that the link has gone away; the little LED will turn off and the OS will be informed on both ends of that link.
But one of the link ends is a router, and these are (except for NAT) stateless. The router does not know what TCP connections are currently running through it, so it cannot notify them - until a packet for that link arrives, at which point it can send back an ICMP packet.
A TCP link with no traffic on it does not exist on the intermediate routers.
(Direct contrast to the old telecom ATM protocol, which was circuit switched and required "reservation" of a full set of end-to-end links).
Most network links absolutely will detect that the link has gone away; the little LED will turn off and the OS will be informed on both ends of that link.
But one of the link ends is a router, and these are (except for NAT) stateless. The router does not know what TCP connections are currently running through it, so it cannot notify them - until a packet for that link arrives, at which point it can send back an ICMP packet.
A TCP link with no traffic on it does not exist on the intermediate routers.
(Direct contrast to the old telecom ATM protocol, which was circuit switched and required "reservation" of a full set of end-to-end links).
For a given connection, (most) packages might go through (e.g.) 10 links. If one link goes down (or is saturated and dropping packets) the connection is supposed to route around it.
So, except for the links on either of end going down (one end really, if the other is on a “data center” the TCP connection is likely terminated in a “server” with redundant networking) you wouldn't want to have a connection terminated just because a link died.
That's explicitly against the goal of a packed switched network.
So, except for the links on either of end going down (one end really, if the other is on a “data center” the TCP connection is likely terminated in a “server” with redundant networking) you wouldn't want to have a connection terminated just because a link died.
That's explicitly against the goal of a packed switched network.
SCTP has hearbeats to detect that.
What you’re looking for is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5880
BFD, it’s used for millisecond failure detection and typically combined with BGP sessions (tcp based) to ensure seamless failover without packet drops.
BFD, it’s used for millisecond failure detection and typically combined with BGP sessions (tcp based) to ensure seamless failover without packet drops.
[deleted]
Shouldn't QUIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC) solve the TCP issues like latency?
As someone who needed high throughput and looked to QUIC because of control of buffers, I recommend against it at this time. It’s got tons of performance problems depending on impl and the API is different.
I don’t think QUIC is bad, or even overengineered, really. It delivers useful features, in theory, that are quite well designed for the modern web centric world. Instead I got a much larger appreciation for TCP, and how well it works everywhere: on commodity hardware, middleboxes, autotuning, NIC offloading etc etc. Never underestimate battletested tech.
In that sense, the lack of TCP_NODELAY is an exception to the rule that TCP performs well out of the box (golang is already doing this by default). As such, I think it’s time to change the default. Not using buffers correctly is a programming error, imo, and can be patched.
I don’t think QUIC is bad, or even overengineered, really. It delivers useful features, in theory, that are quite well designed for the modern web centric world. Instead I got a much larger appreciation for TCP, and how well it works everywhere: on commodity hardware, middleboxes, autotuning, NIC offloading etc etc. Never underestimate battletested tech.
In that sense, the lack of TCP_NODELAY is an exception to the rule that TCP performs well out of the box (golang is already doing this by default). As such, I think it’s time to change the default. Not using buffers correctly is a programming error, imo, and can be patched.
Was this ever implemented though? I found [1] but it was frozen due to age and was never worked on, it seems.
(Edit: doing some more reading, it seems TCP_NODELAY was always the default in Golang. Enable TCP_NODELAY => "disable Nagle's algorithm")
[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57530
(Edit: doing some more reading, it seems TCP_NODELAY was always the default in Golang. Enable TCP_NODELAY => "disable Nagle's algorithm")
[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57530
Yes. That issue is confusingly titled, but consists solely of a quote from the author of the code talking about what they were thinking at the time they did it.
The specific issues that this article discusses (eg Nagle's algorithm) will be present in most packet-switched transport protocols, especially ones that rely on acknowledgements for reliability. The QUIC RFC mentions this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#section-13
Packet overhead, ack frequency, etc are the tip of the iceberg though. QUIC addresses some of the biggest issues with TCP such as head-of-line blocking but still shares the more finicky issues, such as different flow and congestion control algorithms interacting poorly.
Packet overhead, ack frequency, etc are the tip of the iceberg though. QUIC addresses some of the biggest issues with TCP such as head-of-line blocking but still shares the more finicky issues, such as different flow and congestion control algorithms interacting poorly.
Quic is mostly used between client and data center, but not between two datacenter computers. TCP is the better choice once inside the datacenter.
Reasons:
Security Updates
Phones run old kernels and new apps. So it makes a lot of sense to put something that needs updated a lot like the network stack into user space, and quic does well here.
Data center computers run older apps on newer kernels, so it makes sense to put the network stack into the kernel where updates and operational tweaks can happen independent of the app release cycle.
Encryption Overhead
The overhead of TLS is not always needed inside a data center, where it is always needed on a phone.
Head of Line Blocking
Super important on a throttled or bad phone connection, not a big deal when all of your datacenter servers have 10G connections to everything else.
In my opinion TCP is a battle hardened technology that just works even when things go bad. That it contains a setting with perhaps a poor default is a small thing in comparison to its good record for stability in most situations. It's also comforting to know I can tweak kernel parameters if I need something special for my particular use case.
Reasons:
Security Updates
Phones run old kernels and new apps. So it makes a lot of sense to put something that needs updated a lot like the network stack into user space, and quic does well here.
Data center computers run older apps on newer kernels, so it makes sense to put the network stack into the kernel where updates and operational tweaks can happen independent of the app release cycle.
Encryption Overhead
The overhead of TLS is not always needed inside a data center, where it is always needed on a phone.
Head of Line Blocking
Super important on a throttled or bad phone connection, not a big deal when all of your datacenter servers have 10G connections to everything else.
In my opinion TCP is a battle hardened technology that just works even when things go bad. That it contains a setting with perhaps a poor default is a small thing in comparison to its good record for stability in most situations. It's also comforting to know I can tweak kernel parameters if I need something special for my particular use case.
Many performance-sensitive in-datacenter applications have moved away from TCP to reliable datagram protocols. Here's what that looks like at AWS: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9167399
I don't by the reasoning for never needing Nagle anymore. Sure, telnet isn't a thing today, but I bet there are still plenty of apps which do equivalent of:
write(fd, "Host: ")
write(fd, hostname)
write(fd, "\r\n")
write(fd, "Content-type: ")
etc...
Fix the apps. Nobody expect magical perf if you do that when writing to files, even though the OS also has its own buffers. There is no reason to expect otherwise when writing to a socket and actually nagle already doesn't save you from syscall overhead.
Nagle doesn't save the derpy side from syscall overhead, but it would save the other side.
It's not just apps doing this stuff, it also lives in system libraries. I'm still mad at the Android HTTPS library for sending chunked uploads as so many tinygrams. I don't remember exactly, but I think it's reasonable packetization for the data chunk (if it picked a reasonable size anyway), then one packet for \r\n, one for the size, and another for another \r\n. There's no reason for that, but it doesn't hurt the client enough that I can convince them to avoid the system library so they can fix it and the server can manage more throughput. Ugh. (It might be that it's just the TLS packetization that was this bogus and the TCP packetization was fine, it's been a while)
If you take a pcap for some specific issue, there's always so many of these other terrible things in there. </rant>
It's not just apps doing this stuff, it also lives in system libraries. I'm still mad at the Android HTTPS library for sending chunked uploads as so many tinygrams. I don't remember exactly, but I think it's reasonable packetization for the data chunk (if it picked a reasonable size anyway), then one packet for \r\n, one for the size, and another for another \r\n. There's no reason for that, but it doesn't hurt the client enough that I can convince them to avoid the system library so they can fix it and the server can manage more throughput. Ugh. (It might be that it's just the TLS packetization that was this bogus and the TCP packetization was fine, it's been a while)
If you take a pcap for some specific issue, there's always so many of these other terrible things in there. </rant>
I agree that such code should be fixed but having hard time persuading developers to fix their code. Many of them don't know what is a syscall, how making a syscall triggers sending of an IP packet, how a library call translates to a syscall e. t. c. Worse they don't want to know this, they write say Java code (or some other high level language) and argue that libraries/JDK/kernel should handle all 'low level' stuff.
To get optimal performance for request-response protocols like HTTP one should send a full request which includes a request line, all headers and a POST body using a single write syscall (unless POST body is large and it make sense to write it in chunks). Unfortunately not all HTTP libraries work this way and a library user cannot fix this problem without switching a library which is: 1. not always easy 2. it is not widely known which libraries are efficient and which are not. Even if you have an own HTTP library it's not always trivial to fix: e. g. in Java a way to fix this problem while keeping code readable and idiomatic is too wrap socket into BufferedOutputStream which adds one more memory-to-memory copy for all data you are sending on top of at least one memory-to-memory copy you already have without a buffered stream; so it's not an obvious performance win for an application which already saturates memory bandwidth.
To get optimal performance for request-response protocols like HTTP one should send a full request which includes a request line, all headers and a POST body using a single write syscall (unless POST body is large and it make sense to write it in chunks). Unfortunately not all HTTP libraries work this way and a library user cannot fix this problem without switching a library which is: 1. not always easy 2. it is not widely known which libraries are efficient and which are not. Even if you have an own HTTP library it's not always trivial to fix: e. g. in Java a way to fix this problem while keeping code readable and idiomatic is too wrap socket into BufferedOutputStream which adds one more memory-to-memory copy for all data you are sending on top of at least one memory-to-memory copy you already have without a buffered stream; so it's not an obvious performance win for an application which already saturates memory bandwidth.
> Fix the apps. Nobody expect magical perf if you do that when writing to files,
We write to files line-by-line or even character-by-character and expect the library or OS to "magically" buffer it into fast file writes. Same with memory. We expect multiple small mallocs to be smartly coalesced by the platform.
We write to files line-by-line or even character-by-character and expect the library or OS to "magically" buffer it into fast file writes. Same with memory. We expect multiple small mallocs to be smartly coalesced by the platform.
If you expect a POSIX-y OS to buffer write(2) calls, you're sadly misguided. Whether or not that happens depends on nature of the device file you're writing to.
OTOH, if you're using fwrite(3), as you likely should be actual file I/O, then your expectation is entirely reasonable.
Similarly with memory. If you expect brk(2) to handle multiple small allocations "sensibly" you're going to be disappointed. If you use malloc(3) then your expectation is entirely reasonable.
OTOH, if you're using fwrite(3), as you likely should be actual file I/O, then your expectation is entirely reasonable.
Similarly with memory. If you expect brk(2) to handle multiple small allocations "sensibly" you're going to be disappointed. If you use malloc(3) then your expectation is entirely reasonable.
Whether buffering is part of POSIX or not is beside the point. Any modern OS you'll find will buffer write calls in one way or the other. Similarly with memory. Linux waits until accesses page faults before reserving any memory pages for you. My point is that various forms of buffering is everywhere and in practice we do rely on it a whole lot.
> Any modern OS you'll find will buffer write calls in one way or the other.
This is simply not true as a general rule. It depends on the nature of the file descriptor. Yes, if the file descriptor refers to the file system, it will in all likelihood be buffered by the OS (not with O_DIRECT, however). But on "any modern OS", file descriptors can refer to things that are not files, and the buffering situation there will vary from case to case.
This is simply not true as a general rule. It depends on the nature of the file descriptor. Yes, if the file descriptor refers to the file system, it will in all likelihood be buffered by the OS (not with O_DIRECT, however). But on "any modern OS", file descriptors can refer to things that are not files, and the buffering situation there will vary from case to case.
You're right, Linux does not buffer writes to file descriptors for which buffering has no performance benefit...
True to a degree. But that is a singular platform wholly controlled by the OS.
Once you put packets out into the world you're in a shared space.
I assume every conceivable variation of argument has been made both for and against Nagles at this point but it essentially revolves around a shared networking resource and what policy is in place for fair use.
Nagles fixes a particular case but interferes overall. If you fix the "particular case app" the issue goes away.
Once you put packets out into the world you're in a shared space.
I assume every conceivable variation of argument has been made both for and against Nagles at this point but it essentially revolves around a shared networking resource and what policy is in place for fair use.
Nagles fixes a particular case but interferes overall. If you fix the "particular case app" the issue goes away.
Yes, your libraries should fix that. The OS (as in the kernel) should not try to do any abstraction.
Alas, kernels really like to offer abstractions.
Alas, kernels really like to offer abstractions.
Everybody expects magical perf if you do that when writing files. We have RAM buffers and write caches for a reason, even on fast SSDs. We expect it so much that macOS doesn't flush to disk even when you call fsync() (files get flushed to the disk's write buffer instead).
There's some overhead to calling write() in a loop, but it's certainly not as bad as when a call to write() would actually make the data traverse whatever output stream you call it on.
There's some overhead to calling write() in a loop, but it's certainly not as bad as when a call to write() would actually make the data traverse whatever output stream you call it on.
Those are the apps are quickly written and do not care if they unnecessarily congest the network. The ones that do get properly maintained can set TCP_NODELAY. Seems like a reasonable default to me.
We actually have the similar behavior when writing to files: contents are buffered in page cache and are written to disk later in batch, unless user explicitly call "sync".
Apps can always misbehave, you never know what people implement, and you don't always have source code to patch. I don't think the role of the OS is to let the apps do whatever they wish, but it should give the possibility of doing it if it's needed. So I'd rather say, if you know you're properly doing things and you're latency sensitive, just TCP_NODELAY on all your sockets and you're fine, and nobody will blame you about doing it.
I would love to fix the apps, can you point me to the github repo with all the code written the last 30 years so I can get started?
The comment about telnet had me wondering what openssh does, and it sets TCP_NODELAY on every connection, even for interactive sessions. (Confirmed by both reading the code and observing behaviour in 'strace').
Especially for interactive sessions, it absolutely should! :)
Ironic since Nagle's Algorithm (which TCP_NODELAY disables) was invented for interactive sessions.
It's hard to imagine interactive sessions making more than the tiniest of blips on a modern network.
It's hard to imagine interactive sessions making more than the tiniest of blips on a modern network.
Isn't video calling an interactive session?
I think that's more two independent byte streams. You want low latency but what is transfered doesnt really impact the other side, you just constantly want to push the next frame
Thanks, that makes sense!
It's interesting that it's very much an interactive experience for the end-user. But for the logic of the computer, it's not interactive at all.
You can make the contrast even stronger: if both video streams are transmitted over UDP, you don't even need to sent ACKs etc. To be truly one-directional from a technical point of view.
Then compare that to transferring a file via TCP. For the user this is as one-directional and non-interactive as it gets, but the computers constantly talk back and forth.
It's interesting that it's very much an interactive experience for the end-user. But for the logic of the computer, it's not interactive at all.
You can make the contrast even stronger: if both video streams are transmitted over UDP, you don't even need to sent ACKs etc. To be truly one-directional from a technical point of view.
Then compare that to transferring a file via TCP. For the user this is as one-directional and non-interactive as it gets, but the computers constantly talk back and forth.
Video calls indeed almost always use UDP. TCP retransmission isn't really useful since by the time a retransmitted packet arrives it's too old to display. Worse, a single lost packet will block a TCP stream. Sometimes TCP is the only way to get through a firewall, but the experience is bad if there's any packet loss at all.
VC systems do constantly send back packet loss statistics and adjust the video quality to avoid saturating a link. Any buffering in routers along the way will add delay, so you want to keep the bitrate low enough to keep buffers empty.
VC systems do constantly send back packet loss statistics and adjust the video quality to avoid saturating a link. Any buffering in routers along the way will add delay, so you want to keep the bitrate low enough to keep buffers empty.
You don't want ACKs on every frame but video streaming can be made more efficient if you do checkpoints (which informs the encoder that the other side has some data, which means it can compress more efficiently).
You're right! (I'm ignoring the reply thread).
I'm so used to a world where "interactive" was synonymous with "telnet" and "person on keyboard".
I'm so used to a world where "interactive" was synonymous with "telnet" and "person on keyboard".
I don't think that's actually super common anymore when you consider that doing asynchronous I/O, the only sane way to do that is put it into a buffer rather than blocking at every small write(2).
Then you consider that asynchronous I/O is usually necessary both on server (otherwise you don't scale well) and client (because blocking on network calls is terrible experience, especially in today's world of frequent network changes, falling out of network range, etc.)
Then you consider that asynchronous I/O is usually necessary both on server (otherwise you don't scale well) and client (because blocking on network calls is terrible experience, especially in today's world of frequent network changes, falling out of network range, etc.)
We shouldn't penalize the internet at large because some developers write terrible code.
And they really shouldn't do this. Even disregarding the network aspect of it, this is still bad for performance because syscalls are kinda expensive.
Marc addresses that: “That’s going to make some “write every byte” code slower than it would otherwise be, but those applications should be fixed anyway if we care about efficiency.”
Does this matter? Yes, there's a lot of waste. But you also have a 1Gbps link. Every second that you don't use the full 1Gbps is also waste, right?
This is why I always pad out the end of my html files with a megabyte of . A half empty pipe is a half wasted pipe.
I am finally starting to understand some of these OpenOffice/LibreOffice commit messages like https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/a0b6744d3d77
Just be sure HTTP Compression is off though, or you're still half-wasting the pipe.
Better to just dump randomized uncompressible data into html comments.
Better to just dump randomized uncompressible data into html comments.
I think that's an unfair comparison. By using Nagle's algorithm for interactive work, you save bytes, but the software you're interacting with is that much less responsive. (If the client was responsible for echoing typed characters, then it wouldn't matter. But ssh and telnet don't work like that, unfortunately.)
So by saving bytes and leaving your pipe empty, you just suffer in user experience. Why not use something you're already paying for to make your life better?
(In the end, it seems like SSH agrees with me, and just wastes the bytes by enabling TCP_NODELAY.)
So by saving bytes and leaving your pipe empty, you just suffer in user experience. Why not use something you're already paying for to make your life better?
(In the end, it seems like SSH agrees with me, and just wastes the bytes by enabling TCP_NODELAY.)
Those aren't the ones you debug, so they won't be seen by OP. Those are the ones you don't need to debug because Nagle saves you.
Even if you do nothing 'fancy' like Nagle, corking, or userspace building up the complete buffer before writing etc., at the very least the above should be using a vectored write (writev() ).
TCP_CORK handles this better than nagle tho.
Shouldn’t that go through some buffer? Unless you fflush() between each write?
I imagine the write calls show up pretty easily as a bottleneck in a flamegraph.
They don't. Maybe if you're really good you notice the higher overhead but you expect to be spending time writing to the network. The actual impact shows up when the bandwidth consumption is way up on packet and TCP headers which won't show on a flamegraph that easily.
The discussion here mostly seems to miss the point. The argument is to change the default, not to eliminate the behavior altogether.
shouldn't autocorking help with even without nagle?
Ah yeah I fixed this exact bug in net-http in Ruby core a decade ago.
Does anyone know of a good way to enable TCP_NODELAY on sockets when you don't have access to the source for that application? I can't find any kernel settings to make it permanent, or commands to change it after the fact.
I've been able to disable delayed acks using `quickack 1` in the routing table, but it seems particularly hard to enable TCP_NODELAY from outside the application.
I've been having exactly the problem described here lately, when communicating between an application I own and a closed source application it interacts with.
I've been able to disable delayed acks using `quickack 1` in the routing table, but it seems particularly hard to enable TCP_NODELAY from outside the application.
I've been having exactly the problem described here lately, when communicating between an application I own and a closed source application it interacts with.
Would some kind of LD_PRELOAD interception for socket(2) work? Call the real function, then do setsockopt or whatever, and return the modified socket.
> Would some kind of LD_PRELOAD interception for socket(2) work?
That would only work if the call goes through libc, and it's not statically linked. However, it's becoming more and more common to do system calls directly, bypassing libc; the Go language is infamous for doing that, but there's also things like the rustix crate for Rust (https://crates.io/crates/rustix), which does direct system calls by default.
That would only work if the call goes through libc, and it's not statically linked. However, it's becoming more and more common to do system calls directly, bypassing libc; the Go language is infamous for doing that, but there's also things like the rustix crate for Rust (https://crates.io/crates/rustix), which does direct system calls by default.
And go is wrong for doing that, at least on Linux. It bypasses optimizations in the vDSO in some cases. On Fuchsia, we made direct syscalls not through the vDSO illegal and it was funny the hacks to go that required. The system ABI of Linux really isn't the syscall interface, its the system libc. That's because the C ABI (and the behaviors of the triple it was compiled for) and its isms for that platform are the linga franca of that system. Going around that to call syscalls directly, at least for the 90% of useful syscalls on the system that are wrapped by libc, is asinine and creates odd bugs, makes crash reporters heuristical unwinders, debuggers, etc all more painful to write. It also prevents the system vendor from implementing user mode optimizations that avoid mode and context switches when necessary. We tried to solve these issues in Fuchsia, but for Linux, Darwin, and hell, even Windows, if you are making direct syscalls and it's not for something really special and bespoke, you are just flat-out wrong.
> The system ABI of Linux really isn't the syscall interface, its the system libc.
You might have reasons to prefer to use libc; some software has reason to not use libc. Those preferences are in conflict, but one of them is not automatically right and the other wrong in all circumstances.
Many UNIX systems did follow the premise that you must use libc and the syscall interface is unstable. Linux pointedly did not, and decided to have a stable syscall ABI instead. This means it's possible to have multiple C libraries, as well as other libraries, which have different needs or goals and interface with the system differently. That's a useful property of Linux.
There are a couple of established mechanism on Linux for intercepting syscalls: ptrace, and BPF. If you want to intercept all uses of a syscall, intercept the syscall. If you want to intercept a particular glibc function in programs using glibc, or for that matter a musl function in a program using musl, go ahead and use LD_PRELOAD. But the Linux syscall interface is a valid and stable interface to the system, and that's why LD_PRELOAD is not a complete solution.
You might have reasons to prefer to use libc; some software has reason to not use libc. Those preferences are in conflict, but one of them is not automatically right and the other wrong in all circumstances.
Many UNIX systems did follow the premise that you must use libc and the syscall interface is unstable. Linux pointedly did not, and decided to have a stable syscall ABI instead. This means it's possible to have multiple C libraries, as well as other libraries, which have different needs or goals and interface with the system differently. That's a useful property of Linux.
There are a couple of established mechanism on Linux for intercepting syscalls: ptrace, and BPF. If you want to intercept all uses of a syscall, intercept the syscall. If you want to intercept a particular glibc function in programs using glibc, or for that matter a musl function in a program using musl, go ahead and use LD_PRELOAD. But the Linux syscall interface is a valid and stable interface to the system, and that's why LD_PRELOAD is not a complete solution.
It's true that Linux has a stable-ish syscall table. What is funny is that this caused a whole series of Samsung Android phones to reboot randomly with some apps because Samsung added a syscall at the same position someone else did in upstream linux and folks staticly linking their own libc to avoid boionc libc were rebooting phones when calling certain functions because the Samsung syscall causing kernel panics when called wrong. Goes back to it being a bad idea to subvert your system libc. Now, distro vendors do give out multiple versions of a libc that all work with your kernel. This generally works. When we had to fix ABI issues this happened a few times. But I wouldn't trust building our libc and assuming that libc is portable to any linux machine to copy it to.
> It's true that Linux has a stable-ish syscall table.
It's not "stable-ish", it's fully stable. Once a syscall is added to the syscall table on a released version of the official Linux kernel, it might later be replaced by a "not implemented" stub (which always returns -ENOSYS), but it will never be reused for anything else. There's even reserved space on some architectures for the STREAMS syscalls, which were AFAIK never on any released version of the Linux kernel.
The exception is when creating a new architecture; for instance, the syscall table for 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86 has a completely different order.
It's not "stable-ish", it's fully stable. Once a syscall is added to the syscall table on a released version of the official Linux kernel, it might later be replaced by a "not implemented" stub (which always returns -ENOSYS), but it will never be reused for anything else. There's even reserved space on some architectures for the STREAMS syscalls, which were AFAIK never on any released version of the Linux kernel.
The exception is when creating a new architecture; for instance, the syscall table for 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86 has a completely different order.
I think what they meant (judging by the example you ignored) is that the table changes (even if append-only) and you don't know which version you actually have when you statically compile your own version. Thus, your syscalls might be using a newer version of the table but it a) not actually be implemented, or b) implemented with something bespoke.
> Thus, your syscalls might be using a newer version of the table but it a) not actually be implemented,
That's the same case as when a syscall is later removed: it returns -ENOSYS. The correct way is to do the call normally as if it were implemented, and if it returns -ENOSYS, you know that this syscall does not exist in the currently running kernel, and you should try something else. That is the same no matter whether it's compiled statically or dynamically; even a dynamic glibc has fallback paths for some missing syscalls (glibc has a minimum required kernel version, so it does not need to have fallback paths for features introduced a long time ago).
> or b) implemented with something bespoke.
There's nothing you can do to protect against a modified kernel which does something different from the upstream Linux kernel. Even going through libc doesn't help, since whoever modified the Linux kernel to do something unexpected could also have modified the C library to do something unexpected, or libc could trip over the unexpected kernel changes.
One example of this happening is with seccomp filters. They can be used to make a syscall fail with an unexpected error code, and this can confuse the C library. More specifically, a seccomp filter which forces the clone3 syscall to always return -EPERM breaks newer libc versions which try the clone3 syscall first, and then fallback to the older clone syscall if clone3 returned -ENOSYS (which indicates an older kernel that does not have the clone3 syscall); this breaks for instance running newer Linux distributions within older Docker versions.
That's the same case as when a syscall is later removed: it returns -ENOSYS. The correct way is to do the call normally as if it were implemented, and if it returns -ENOSYS, you know that this syscall does not exist in the currently running kernel, and you should try something else. That is the same no matter whether it's compiled statically or dynamically; even a dynamic glibc has fallback paths for some missing syscalls (glibc has a minimum required kernel version, so it does not need to have fallback paths for features introduced a long time ago).
> or b) implemented with something bespoke.
There's nothing you can do to protect against a modified kernel which does something different from the upstream Linux kernel. Even going through libc doesn't help, since whoever modified the Linux kernel to do something unexpected could also have modified the C library to do something unexpected, or libc could trip over the unexpected kernel changes.
One example of this happening is with seccomp filters. They can be used to make a syscall fail with an unexpected error code, and this can confuse the C library. More specifically, a seccomp filter which forces the clone3 syscall to always return -EPERM breaks newer libc versions which try the clone3 syscall first, and then fallback to the older clone syscall if clone3 returned -ENOSYS (which indicates an older kernel that does not have the clone3 syscall); this breaks for instance running newer Linux distributions within older Docker versions.
Every kernel I’ve ever used has been different from an upstream kernel, with custom patches applied. It’s literally open source, anyone can do anything to it that they want. If you are using libc, you’d have a reasonable expectation not to need to know the details of those changes. If you call the kernel directly via syscall, then yeah, there is nothing you can do about someone making modifications to open source software.
Generally, if you're patching the kernel you should coordinate with upstream if you care about your ABI.
I don’t think anyone is asking Linus for permission to backport security fixes to their own kernels… that’s ridiculous.
If your security fix alters the ABI it is almost always the case that this is done
The complication with the linux syscall interface is that it turns the worse is better up to 11. Like setuid works on a per thread basis, which is seriously not what you want, so every program/runtime must do this fun little thread stop and start and thunk dance.
Yeah, agreed. One of the items on my long TODO list is adding `setuid_process` and `setgid_process` and similar, so that perhaps a decade later when new runtimes can count on the presence of those syscalls, they can stop duplicating that mechanism in userspace.
You seem to be saying 'it was incorrect on Fuchsia, so it's incorrect on Linux'. No, it's correct on Linux, and incorrect on every other platform, as each platform's documentation is very clear on. Go did it incorrectly on FreeBSD, but that's Go being Go; they did it in the first place because it's a Linux-first system and it's correct on Linux. And glibc does not have any special privilege, the vdso optimizations it takes advantage of are just as easily taken advantage of by the Go compiler. There's no reason to bucket Linux with Windows on the subject of syscalls when the Linux manpages are very clear that syscalls are there to be used and exhaustively documents them, while MSDN is very clear that the system interface is kernel32.dll and ntdll.dll, and shuffles the syscall numbers every so often so you don't get any funny ideas.
> The system ABI of Linux really isn't the syscall interface, its the system libc.
Which one? The Linux Kernel doesn't provide a libc. What if you're a static executable?
Even on Operating Systems with a libc provided by the kernel, it's almost always allowed to upgrade the kernel without upgrading the userland (including libc); that works because the interface between userland and kernel is syscalls.
That certainly ties something that makes syscalls to a narrow range of kernel versions, but it's not as if dynamically linking libc means your program will be compatible forever either.
Which one? The Linux Kernel doesn't provide a libc. What if you're a static executable?
Even on Operating Systems with a libc provided by the kernel, it's almost always allowed to upgrade the kernel without upgrading the userland (including libc); that works because the interface between userland and kernel is syscalls.
That certainly ties something that makes syscalls to a narrow range of kernel versions, but it's not as if dynamically linking libc means your program will be compatible forever either.
> That certainly ties something that makes syscalls to a narrow range of kernel versions
I don't think that's right, wouldn't it be the earliest kernel supporting that call and onwards? The Linux ABI intentionally never breaks userland.
I don't think that's right, wouldn't it be the earliest kernel supporting that call and onwards? The Linux ABI intentionally never breaks userland.
In the case where you're running an Operating System that provides a libc and is OK with removing older syscalls, there's a beginning and an end to support.
Looking at FreeBSD under /usr/include/sys/syscall.h, there's a good number of retired syscalls.
On Linux under /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/asm/unistd_32.h I see a fair number of missing numbers --- not sure what those are about, but 222, 223, 251, 285, and 387-392 are missing. (on Debian 12.1 with linux-image-6.1.0-12-amd64 version 6.1.52-1, if it matters)
Looking at FreeBSD under /usr/include/sys/syscall.h, there's a good number of retired syscalls.
On Linux under /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/asm/unistd_32.h I see a fair number of missing numbers --- not sure what those are about, but 222, 223, 251, 285, and 387-392 are missing. (on Debian 12.1 with linux-image-6.1.0-12-amd64 version 6.1.52-1, if it matters)
> And go is wrong for doing that, at least on Linux. It bypasses optimizations in the vDSO in some cases.
Go's runtime does go through the vDSO for syscalls that support it, though (e.g., [0]). Of course, it won't magically adapt to new functions added in later kernel versions, but neither will a statically-linked libc. And it's not like it's a regular occurrence for Linux to new functions to the vDSO, in any case.
[0] https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/runtime/time_li...
Go's runtime does go through the vDSO for syscalls that support it, though (e.g., [0]). Of course, it won't magically adapt to new functions added in later kernel versions, but neither will a statically-linked libc. And it's not like it's a regular occurrence for Linux to new functions to the vDSO, in any case.
[0] https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/runtime/time_li...
Linux doesn't even have consensus on what libc to use, and ABI breakage between glibc and musl is not unheard of. (Probably not for syscalls but for other things.)
The proliferation of Docker containers seems to go against that. Those really only work well since the kernel has a stable syscall ABI.
So much so that you see Microsoft switching to a stable syscall ABI with Windows 11.
Source about Microsoft switching to stable syscall ABI due to containers?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscont...
"Decoupling the User/Kernel boundary in Windows is a monumental task and highly non-trivial, however, we have been working hard to stabilize this boundary across all of Windows to provide our customers the flexibility to run down-level containers"
"Decoupling the User/Kernel boundary in Windows is a monumental task and highly non-trivial, however, we have been working hard to stabilize this boundary across all of Windows to provide our customers the flexibility to run down-level containers"
It should be possible to use vDSO without libc, although probably a lot of work.
It's not that much work; after all, every libc needs to have its own implementation. The kernel maps the vDSO into memory for you, and gives you the base address as an entry in the auxiliary vector.
But using it does require some basic knowledge of the ELF format on the current platform, in order to parse the symbol table. (Alongside knowledge of which functions are available in the first place.)
But using it does require some basic knowledge of the ELF format on the current platform, in order to parse the symbol table. (Alongside knowledge of which functions are available in the first place.)
It's hard work to NOT have the damn vDSO invade your address space. Only kludge part of Linux, well, apart from Nagle's, dlopen, and that weird zero copy kernel patch that mmap'd -each- socket recv(!) for a while.
It's possible, but tedious: if you disable ASLR to put the stack at the top of virtual memory, then use ELF segments to fill up everything from the mmap base downward (or upward, if you've set that), then the kernel will have nowhere left to put the vDSO, and give up.
(I investigated vDSO placement quite a lot for my x86-64 tiny ELF project: I had to rule out the possibility of a tiny ELF placing its entry point in the vDSO, to bounce back out somewhere else in the address space. It can be done, but not in any ELF file shorter than one that enters its own mapping directly.)
Curiously, there are undocumented arch_prctl() commands to map any of the three vDSOs (32, 64, x32) into your address space, if they are not already mapped, or have been unmapped.
(I investigated vDSO placement quite a lot for my x86-64 tiny ELF project: I had to rule out the possibility of a tiny ELF placing its entry point in the vDSO, to bounce back out somewhere else in the address space. It can be done, but not in any ELF file shorter than one that enters its own mapping directly.)
Curiously, there are undocumented arch_prctl() commands to map any of the three vDSOs (32, 64, x32) into your address space, if they are not already mapped, or have been unmapped.
Those are very strong words...
Depending on the specifics, you might be able to add socat in the middle.
Instead of: your_app —> server
you’d have: your_app -> localhost_socat -> server
socat has command line options for setting tcp_nodelay. You’d need to convince your closed source app to connect to localhost, though. But if it’s doing a dns lookup, you could probably convince it to connect to localhost with an /etc/hosts entry
Since your app would be talking to socat over a local socket, the app’s tcp_nodelay wouldn’t have any effect.
Instead of: your_app —> server
you’d have: your_app -> localhost_socat -> server
socat has command line options for setting tcp_nodelay. You’d need to convince your closed source app to connect to localhost, though. But if it’s doing a dns lookup, you could probably convince it to connect to localhost with an /etc/hosts entry
Since your app would be talking to socat over a local socket, the app’s tcp_nodelay wouldn’t have any effect.
Attach debugger (ptrace), call setsockopt?
opening `/proc/<pid>/fd/<fd number>` and setting the socket option may work (not tested)
Is it possible to set it as a global OS setting, inside a container?
you could try ebpf and hook on the socket syscall. might be harder than LD_PRELOAD as suggested by other commenters though
~15 years ago I played an MMO that was very real-time, and yet all of the communication was TCP. Literally you'd click a button, and you would not even see your action play out until a response packet came back.
All of the kids playing this game (me included) eventually figured out you could turn on TCP_NODELAY to make the game buttery smooth - especially for those in California close to the game servers.
All of the kids playing this game (me included) eventually figured out you could turn on TCP_NODELAY to make the game buttery smooth - especially for those in California close to the game servers.
Not sure if you're talking about WoW, but around that time ago an update to the game did exactly this change (and possibly more).
An interesting side-effect of this was that before the change if something stalled the TCP stream, the game would hang for a while then very quickly replay all the missed incoming events (which was very often you being killed). After the change you'd instead just be disconnected.
An interesting side-effect of this was that before the change if something stalled the TCP stream, the game would hang for a while then very quickly replay all the missed incoming events (which was very often you being killed). After the change you'd instead just be disconnected.
I think I have a very vague memory of the "hang, hang, hang, SURPRISE! You're dead" thing happening in Diablo II but it's been so long I wouldn't bet on having remembered correctly.
Relevant Oxide and Friends podcast episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqvVmYhclAg
This was a great episode and the really drove home the importance of visualization.
Not if you use a modern language that enables TCP_NODELAY by default, like Go. :-)
Node.js also does this since at least 2020.
Since 2022 v.18.
PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/42163
Changelog entry: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHAN...
PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/42163
Changelog entry: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHAN...
Why do you need a whole language for that? Couldn't you just use a 'modern' networking library?
Sure, like the one in https://9fans.github.io/plan9port/. :-)
Not every time. Sometimes it's DNS.
Once it was a failing line card in router zeroing last bit in IPv4 addresses, resulting in ticket about "only even IPv4 addresses are accessible" ...
For some reason this reminded me of the "500mi email" bug [1], maybe a similar level of initial apparent absurdity?
[1] https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html
[1] https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html
The most absurd thing to me about the 500 mile email situation is that sendmail just happily started up and soldiered on after being given a completely alien config file. Could be read as another example of "be liberal in what you accept" going awry, but sendmail's wretched config format is really a volume of war stories all its own...
My favorite example of that was a while ago, "vixie-cron will read a cron stanza from a core dump written to /etc/cron.d" when you could convince it to write a core dump there. The other crons wouldn't touch that, but vixie-cron happily chomped through the core dump for "* * * * * root chmod u+s /tmp/uhoh" etc.
Configuration changes are one of those areas where having some kind of "are you sure? (y/n)" check can really pay off. It wouldn't have helped in this case, because there wasn't really any change management process to speak of, but we haven't fully learned the lesson yet.
Confirmations are mostly useless unless you explicitly spell out the implications of the change. They are also inferior to being able to undo changes.
That's a lesson many don't know.
That's a lesson many don't know.
Your time from commit to live is proportional to your rollback to a known good state. Maybe to a power of the rollback time.
I can definitely confirm our initial reaction was "WTF" followed with idea that the dev team is making fun of us... but we went in and run traceroutes and there it was :O
Was fixed in incredible coincidence manner, too - the CTO of the network link provider was in their offices (in the same building as me) and felt bored. Apparently having went through all the levels from hauling cables in datacenter up to CTO level, after short look at traceroutes he just picked a phone, called NOC, and ordered a line card replacement on the router :D
Was fixed in incredible coincidence manner, too - the CTO of the network link provider was in their offices (in the same building as me) and felt bored. Apparently having went through all the levels from hauling cables in datacenter up to CTO level, after short look at traceroutes he just picked a phone, called NOC, and ordered a line card replacement on the router :D
One time for me it was: the glass was dirty.
Some router near a construction site had dust settle into the gap between the laser and the fiber, and it attenuated the signal enough to see 40-50% packet loss.
We figured out where the loss was and had our NOC email the relevant transit provider. A day later we got an email back from the tech they dispatched with the story.
Some router near a construction site had dust settle into the gap between the laser and the fiber, and it attenuated the signal enough to see 40-50% packet loss.
We figured out where the loss was and had our NOC email the relevant transit provider. A day later we got an email back from the tech they dispatched with the story.
Once every 50 years and 2 billion kilometers, it's a failing memory chip. But you can usually just patch around them, so no big deal.
Don’t forget BGP or running out of disk space without an alert.
When it fails, it's DNS. When it just stops moving, it's either TCP_NODELAY or stream buffering.
Really complex systems (the Web) also fail because of caching.
Really complex systems (the Web) also fail because of caching.
I chuckle whenever I see this meme, because in my experience, the issue is usually DHCP.
But it's usually DHCP that sets the wrong DNS servers.
It's funny that some folks claim DNS outage is a legitimate issue in systems whose both ends they control. I get it; reimplementing functionality is rarely a good sign, but since you already know your own addresses in the first place, you should also have an internal mechanism for sharing them.
It's funny that some folks claim DNS outage is a legitimate issue in systems whose both ends they control. I get it; reimplementing functionality is rarely a good sign, but since you already know your own addresses in the first place, you should also have an internal mechanism for sharing them.
Not every time. Sometimes, the power cord is only connected at one end.
John Nagle has posted insightful comments about the historical background for this many times, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9048947 referenced in the article. He's a prolific HN commenter (#11 on the leaderboard) so it can be hard to find everything, but some more comments searchable via https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... or https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The sending pattern matters. Send/Receive/Send/Receive won't trigger the problem, because the request will go out immediately and the reply will provide an ACK and allow another request. Bulk transfers won't cause the problem, because if you fill the outgoing block size, there's no delay.
But Send/Send/Receive will. This comes up a lot in game systems, where most of the traffic is small events going one way.
But Send/Send/Receive will. This comes up a lot in game systems, where most of the traffic is small events going one way.
I love it when Nagle's algorithm comes up on HN. Inevitably someone, not knowing "Animats" is John Nagle, responds a comment from Animats with a "knowing better" tone. >smile<
(I also really like Animats' comments, too.)
(I also really like Animats' comments, too.)
I have to confess that when I saw this post, I quickly skimmed the threads to check if someone was trying to educate Animats on TCP. Think I've only seen that happen in the wild once or twice, but it absolutely made my day when it did.
It's always the highlight of my day when it happens, almost as nice as when someone chimes in to educate John Carmack on 3D graphics and VR technology.
[deleted]
I always check if the man himself makes an appearance every time I see that. He has posted a few comments in here already.
It is like when someone here accused Andres Freund (PostgreSQL core dev who recently became famous due to the xz backdoor) of Dunning–Kruger when he had commented on something related to PostgreSQL's architecture which he had spent many many hours working on personally (I think it was pluggable storage).
Maybe you just tried to educate the leading expert in the world on his own expertise. :D
Maybe you just tried to educate the leading expert in the world on his own expertise. :D
FYI the best way to filter by author is 'author:Animats' this will only show results from the user Animats and won't match animats inside the comment text.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This is an interesting thing that points out why abstraction layers can be bad without proper message passing mechanisms.
This could be fixed if there was a way for the application at L7 to tell the TCP stack at L4 "hey, I'm an interactive shell so I expect to have a lot of tiny packets, you should leave TCP_NODELAY on for these packets" so that it can be off by default but on for that application to reduce overhead.
Of course nowadays it's probably an unnecessary optimization anyway, but back in '84 it would have been super handy.
This could be fixed if there was a way for the application at L7 to tell the TCP stack at L4 "hey, I'm an interactive shell so I expect to have a lot of tiny packets, you should leave TCP_NODELAY on for these packets" so that it can be off by default but on for that application to reduce overhead.
Of course nowadays it's probably an unnecessary optimization anyway, but back in '84 it would have been super handy.
"I'm an interactive shell so I expect to have a lot of tiny packets" is what the delay is for. If you want to turn it off for those, you should turn it off for everything.
(If you're worried about programs that buffer badly, then you could compensate with a 1ms delay. But not this round trip stuff.)
(If you're worried about programs that buffer badly, then you could compensate with a 1ms delay. But not this round trip stuff.)
[deleted]
The take-away I get is that abstraction layers (in the kernel) can be bad.
Operating system kernels should enable secure multiplexing of resources. Abstraction and portability should be done via libraries.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exokernel
Operating system kernels should enable secure multiplexing of resources. Abstraction and portability should be done via libraries.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exokernel
I do wish that TCP_NODELAY was the default, and there was a TCP_DELAY option instead. That'd be a world in which people who want the batch-style behavior (optimizing for throughput and fewer packets at the expense of latency) could still opt into it.
So do I, but I with there was a new one TCP_RTTDELAY. It would take a byte that would be what 128th of RTT you want to use for Nagle instead of one RTT or full* buffer. 0 would be the default, behaving as you and I prefer.
* "Given the vast amount of work a modern server can do in even a few hundred microseconds, delaying sending data for even one RTT isn’t clearly a win."
I don't think that's such an issue anymore either, given that the server produces so much data it fills the output buffer quickly anyway, the data is then immediately sent before the delay runs its course.
* "Given the vast amount of work a modern server can do in even a few hundred microseconds, delaying sending data for even one RTT isn’t clearly a win."
I don't think that's such an issue anymore either, given that the server produces so much data it fills the output buffer quickly anyway, the data is then immediately sent before the delay runs its course.
We used to call them "packlets."
His "tinygrams" is pretty good too, but that sort of implies UDP (D -> datagrams)
His "tinygrams" is pretty good too, but that sort of implies UDP (D -> datagrams)
> We used to call them "packlets."
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_MAKE_IT_GO, &go, sizeof(go));
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_MAKE_IT_GO, &go, sizeof(go));
Can't it have "if payload is 1 byte (or less than X) then wait, otherwise don't" condition?
Some network stacks like those in Solaris and HP/UX let you tune the "Nagle limit" in just such a fashion, up to disabling it entirely by setting it to 1. I'm not aware of it being tunable on Linux, though you can manually control the buffering using TCP_CORK. https://baus.net/on-tcp_cork/ has some nice details.
How is what you're describing not just Nagle's algorithm?
If you mean TCP_NODELAY, you should use it with TCP_CORK, which prevents partial frames. TCP_CORK the socket, do your writes to the kernel via send, and then once you have an application level "message" ready to send out — i.e., once you're at the point where you're going to go to sleep and wait for the other end to respond, unset TCP_CORK & then go back to your event loop & sleep. The "uncork" at the end + nodelay sends the final partial frame, if there is one.
If you mean TCP_NODELAY, you should use it with TCP_CORK, which prevents partial frames. TCP_CORK the socket, do your writes to the kernel via send, and then once you have an application level "message" ready to send out — i.e., once you're at the point where you're going to go to sleep and wait for the other end to respond, unset TCP_CORK & then go back to your event loop & sleep. The "uncork" at the end + nodelay sends the final partial frame, if there is one.
There is a socket option, SO_SNDLOWAT. It's not implement Linux according to the manual page. The description in UNIX Network Programming and TCP Illustrated conflict, too. So it's probably not useful.
You can buffer in userspace. Don't do small writes to the socket and no bytes will be sent. Don't do two consecutive small writes and nagle won't kick in.
FreeBSD has accept filters, which let you do something like wait for a complete HTTP header (inaccurate from memory summary.) Not sure about the sending side.
From my blog > 10 years ago but sadly still relevant:
"Sockets should have a flushHint() API call.": https://forwardscattering.org/post/3
For folks looking to disable in windows this is how it is done fyi !!
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/fix-tcp-ip-nagle-a...
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/fix-tcp-ip-nagle-a...
Nagle and no delay are like like 90+% of the latency bugs I’ve dealt with.
Two reasonable ideas that mix terribly in practice.
Two reasonable ideas that mix terribly in practice.
I just ran into this this week implementing a socket library in CLIPS. I used Berkley sockets, and before that I had only worked with higher-level languages/frameworks that abstracts a lot of these concerns away. I was quite confused when Firefox would show a "connection reset by peer." It didn't occur to me it could be an issue "lower" in the stack. `tcpdump` helped me to observe the port and I saw that the server never sent anything before my application closed the connection.
The real issue in modern data centers is TCP. Of course at present, we need to know about these little annoyances at the application layer, but what we really need is innovation in the data center at level 4. And yes I know that many people are looking into this and have been for years, but the economic motivation clearly has not yet been strong enough. But that may change if the public's appetite for LLM-based tooling causes data centers to increase 10x (which seems likely).
I was curious whether I had to change anything in my applications after reading that so did a bit of research.
Both Node.js and Curl use TCP_NODELAY by default from a long time.
Both Node.js and Curl use TCP_NODELAY by default from a long time.
Nodejs enabled TCP_NODELAY by default in 2022 v.18.
PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/42163
Changelog entry: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHAN...
PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/42163
Changelog entry: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHAN...
That's the HTTP module, but it was already moved to NODELAY for the 'net' module in 2015.
As a counterpoint, here's the story of how for me it wasn't TCP_NODELAY: for some reason my Nodejs TCP service was talking a few seconds to reply to my requests in localhost (Windows machine). After the connection was established everything was pretty normal but it consistently took a few seconds to establish the connection.
I even downloaded netcat for Windows to go as bare ones as possible... and the exact same thing happened.
I rewrote a POC service in Rust and... oh wow, the same thing happens.
It took me a very long time of not finding anything on the internet (and getting yelled at in Stack Overflow, or rather one of its sister sites) and painstakingly debugging (including writing my own tiny client with tons of debug statements) until I realized "localhost" was resolving first to IPv6 loopback in Windows and, only after quietly timing out there (because I was only listening on IPv4 loopback), it did try and instantly connect through IPv4.
I even downloaded netcat for Windows to go as bare ones as possible... and the exact same thing happened.
I rewrote a POC service in Rust and... oh wow, the same thing happens.
It took me a very long time of not finding anything on the internet (and getting yelled at in Stack Overflow, or rather one of its sister sites) and painstakingly debugging (including writing my own tiny client with tons of debug statements) until I realized "localhost" was resolving first to IPv6 loopback in Windows and, only after quietly timing out there (because I was only listening on IPv4 loopback), it did try and instantly connect through IPv4.
I've seen this too, but luckily someone one the internet gave me a pointer to the exact problem so I didn't have to go deep to figure out.
Not sure if this is a bit off topic or not, but I recently encountered a problem where my program are continuously calling write to a socket in a loop that loops N times, with each of them sending about a few hundred bytes of data representing an application-level message. The loop can be understanded as some "batched messages" to server. After that, the program will try to receive data from server and do some processing.
The problem is that if N is above certain limit (e.g. 4), the server will resulting in some error saying that the data is truncated somehow. I want to make N larger because the round-trip latency is already high enough, so being blocked by this is pretty annoying. Eventually, I found an answer on stackoverflow saying that setting TCP_NODELAY can fix this, and it actually magically enable be to increase N to a larger number like 64 or 128 without causing issues. Still not sure why TCP_NODELAY can fix this issue and why this problem happens in the first place.
The problem is that if N is above certain limit (e.g. 4), the server will resulting in some error saying that the data is truncated somehow. I want to make N larger because the round-trip latency is already high enough, so being blocked by this is pretty annoying. Eventually, I found an answer on stackoverflow saying that setting TCP_NODELAY can fix this, and it actually magically enable be to increase N to a larger number like 64 or 128 without causing issues. Still not sure why TCP_NODELAY can fix this issue and why this problem happens in the first place.
My guess would be that the server assumes that every call to recv() terminates on a message boundary.
With TCP_NODELAY and small messages, this works out fine. Every message is contained in a single packet, and the userspace buffer being read into is large enough to contain it. As such, whenever the kernel has any data to give to userspace, it has an integer number of messages to give. Nothing requires the kernel to respect that, but it will not go out of its way to break it.
In contrast, without TCP_NODELAY, messages get concatenated and then fragmented based on where packet boundaries occur. Now, the natural end point for a call to recv() is not the message boundary, but the packet boundary.
The server is supposed to see that it is in the middle of a message, and make another call to recv() to get the rest of it; but clearly it does not do that.
With TCP_NODELAY and small messages, this works out fine. Every message is contained in a single packet, and the userspace buffer being read into is large enough to contain it. As such, whenever the kernel has any data to give to userspace, it has an integer number of messages to give. Nothing requires the kernel to respect that, but it will not go out of its way to break it.
In contrast, without TCP_NODELAY, messages get concatenated and then fragmented based on where packet boundaries occur. Now, the natural end point for a call to recv() is not the message boundary, but the packet boundary.
The server is supposed to see that it is in the middle of a message, and make another call to recv() to get the rest of it; but clearly it does not do that.
Otherwise known as the "TCP is a stream-based abstraction, not a packet-based abstraction" bug.
A related one is failing to process the second of two complete commands that happen to arrive in the same recv() call.
A related one is failing to process the second of two complete commands that happen to arrive in the same recv() call.
I find these bugs to be a sign that the app is not using a good wrapper but just mostly gets lucky that the packet isn’t split randomly on the way.
> The problem is that if N is above certain limit (e.g. 4), the server will resulting in some error saying that the data is truncated somehow.
Maybe your server expects full application-level messages from single "recv" call? This is is not correct. A message may be spited across multiple recv buffers.
Maybe your server expects full application-level messages from single "recv" call? This is is not correct. A message may be spited across multiple recv buffers.
What if we changed the kernel or tcp stack to hold on to the packet for only a short time before sending it out. This could allow you to balance the latency against the network cost of many small packets. The tcp stack could even do it dynamically if needed.
Genius
If you are sooo worried about latency, maybe TCP is a bad choice to start with…
I hate to see people using TCP for all, without the minimal understanding of what problems TCP wants to solve, and specially which dont.
TCP solves for “when i send a message i want the other side to actually receive it” which is…fairly common
tcp enforces a much stricter ordering than desirable (head of line blocking). quic does a much better job of emulating a stream of independent tasks.
I was gonna say its always lro offload but my experience is dated.
This sounds like the root of my vncviewer / server interaction bugs i experience with some vnc viewer/server combo’s between ubuntu linux and freebsd… (tight/tiger)
Here is the thing. Nagle's and the delayed ACK may suck for individual app performance, but fewer packets on the network is better for the entire network.
[deleted]
Wow, never would have thought of that.
Is this something I should also adjust on my personal Ubuntu machine for better network performance?
It's always TCP_NODELAY. Except when it's head of line blocking, then it's not.
Brings back memories. This was a big Sybase performance win back in the day.
Use UDP ;)
Too many applications end up reinventing TCP or SCTP in user-space. Also, network-level QoS applied to unrecognized UDP protocols typically means it gets throttled before TCP. Use UDP when nothing else will work, when the use-case doesn't need a persistent connection, and when no other messaging or transport library is suitable.
Bingo
>To make a clearer case, let’s turn back to the justification behind Nagle’s algorithm: amortizing the cost of headers and avoiding that 40x overhead on single-byte packets. But does anybody send single byte packets anymore?
That is a bit of a strawman there. While he uses single byte packets as the worst case example, the issue as stated is any not full packet.
That is a bit of a strawman there. While he uses single byte packets as the worst case example, the issue as stated is any not full packet.
Agreed. Another thing along the same path is expect. Needs to be disabled in many cloud services.
Apropos repost from 2015:
> That still irks me. The real problem is not tinygram prevention. It's ACK delays, and that stupid fixed timer. They both went into TCP around the same time, but independently. I did tinygram prevention (the Nagle algorithm) and Berkeley did delayed ACKs, both in the early 1980s. The combination of the two is awful. Unfortunately by the time I found about delayed ACKs, I had changed jobs, was out of networking, and doing a product for Autodesk on non-networked PCs.
> Delayed ACKs are a win only in certain circumstances - mostly character echo for Telnet. (When Berkeley installed delayed ACKs, they were doing a lot of Telnet from terminal concentrators in student terminal rooms to host VAX machines doing the work. For that particular situation, it made sense.) The delayed ACK timer is scaled to expected human response time. A delayed ACK is a bet that the other end will reply to what you just sent almost immediately. Except for some RPC protocols, this is unlikely. So the ACK delay mechanism loses the bet, over and over, delaying the ACK, waiting for a packet on which the ACK can be piggybacked, not getting it, and then sending the ACK, delayed. There's nothing in TCP to automatically turn this off. However, Linux (and I think Windows) now have a TCP_QUICKACK socket option. Turn that on unless you have a very unusual application.
> Turning on TCP_NODELAY has similar effects, but can make throughput worse for small writes. If you write a loop which sends just a few bytes (worst case, one byte) to a socket with "write()", and the Nagle algorithm is disabled with TCP_NODELAY, each write becomes one IP packet. This increases traffic by a factor of 40, with IP and TCP headers for each payload. Tinygram prevention won't let you send a second packet if you have one in flight, unless you have enough data to fill the maximum sized packet. It accumulates bytes for one round trip time, then sends everything in the queue. That's almost always what you > want. If you have TCP_NODELAY set, you need to be much more aware of buffering and flushing issues.
> None of this matters for bulk one-way transfers, which is most HTTP today. (I've never looked at the impact of this on the SSL handshake, where it might matter.)
> Short version: set TCP_QUICKACK. If you find a case where that makes things worse, let me know.
> John Nagle
(2015)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10608356
---
Support platform survey:
TCP_QUICKACK: Linux (must set again every every recv())
TCP_NODELAY: Linux, Apple, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD
References:
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/tcp.7.html
https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.17/bsd/ne...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/ippr...
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37851/esc-tcp-4p....
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tcp
https://man.openbsd.org/tcp
https://man.netbsd.org/NetBSD-8.0/tcp.4
> That still irks me. The real problem is not tinygram prevention. It's ACK delays, and that stupid fixed timer. They both went into TCP around the same time, but independently. I did tinygram prevention (the Nagle algorithm) and Berkeley did delayed ACKs, both in the early 1980s. The combination of the two is awful. Unfortunately by the time I found about delayed ACKs, I had changed jobs, was out of networking, and doing a product for Autodesk on non-networked PCs.
> Delayed ACKs are a win only in certain circumstances - mostly character echo for Telnet. (When Berkeley installed delayed ACKs, they were doing a lot of Telnet from terminal concentrators in student terminal rooms to host VAX machines doing the work. For that particular situation, it made sense.) The delayed ACK timer is scaled to expected human response time. A delayed ACK is a bet that the other end will reply to what you just sent almost immediately. Except for some RPC protocols, this is unlikely. So the ACK delay mechanism loses the bet, over and over, delaying the ACK, waiting for a packet on which the ACK can be piggybacked, not getting it, and then sending the ACK, delayed. There's nothing in TCP to automatically turn this off. However, Linux (and I think Windows) now have a TCP_QUICKACK socket option. Turn that on unless you have a very unusual application.
> Turning on TCP_NODELAY has similar effects, but can make throughput worse for small writes. If you write a loop which sends just a few bytes (worst case, one byte) to a socket with "write()", and the Nagle algorithm is disabled with TCP_NODELAY, each write becomes one IP packet. This increases traffic by a factor of 40, with IP and TCP headers for each payload. Tinygram prevention won't let you send a second packet if you have one in flight, unless you have enough data to fill the maximum sized packet. It accumulates bytes for one round trip time, then sends everything in the queue. That's almost always what you > want. If you have TCP_NODELAY set, you need to be much more aware of buffering and flushing issues.
> None of this matters for bulk one-way transfers, which is most HTTP today. (I've never looked at the impact of this on the SSL handshake, where it might matter.)
> Short version: set TCP_QUICKACK. If you find a case where that makes things worse, let me know.
> John Nagle
(2015)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10608356
---
Support platform survey:
TCP_QUICKACK: Linux (must set again every every recv())
TCP_NODELAY: Linux, Apple, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD
References:
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/tcp.7.html
https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.17/bsd/ne...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/ippr...
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37851/esc-tcp-4p....
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tcp
https://man.openbsd.org/tcp
https://man.netbsd.org/NetBSD-8.0/tcp.4