Why not UDP [LWN.net]

Why not UDP

Posted Dec 31, 2024 9:48 UTC (Tue) by npws (subscriber, #168248)
In reply to: Why not UDP by dvdeug
Parent article: The Homa network protocol

It is questionable whether this would really be a workaround. "The only state that exists on the server is held between the receipt of the request and the receipt of the response by the client". This sounds like pretty much what UDP is meant for, stateless query-response protocols. The benefits of using UDP are obvious, no need for a kernel implementation, at least initially, easier development, easier deployment.

Why not UDP

Posted Jan 3, 2025 19:55 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> The benefits of using UDP are obvious, no need for a kernel implementation, at least initially, easier development, easier deployment.

Except that the costs (as I understand it) basically destroy all the benefits! It's called UDP/IP for a reason (although we normally drop the IP bit, same as TCP). The IP stands for Internet Protocol, which is designed to go through routers etc etc. Homa is designed for a LAN, where typically you're routing MAC addresses through a switch, not IP addresses through a router.

So yes, the fundamental idea behind Homa and UDP is very similar. But the *implementation* is very different, and that's the whole point. And the whole point of Homa is that - by deleting all that overhead of routing - it gets a massive speedup.

As the original article said, don't try to run Homa over a WAN. It's the (in)ability to be efficient over the WAN, that helps it be the Cheetah in the server room.

Cheers,
Wol

Why not UDP

Posted Jan 3, 2025 20:17 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I don't think that routing, in particular, is key to the design of Homa, with the possible exception of the assumption that round-trip times will be short and constant. Remember that Homa, too, is built on top of IP...