ffk

A lot of the time once you get into multi-gig+ territory the answer isn't "make the kernel faster," it's "stop doing it in the kernel."

You end up pushing the hot path out to userland where you can actually scale across cores (DPDK/netmap/XDP style approaches), batch packets, and then DMA straight to and from the NIC. The kernel becomes more of a control plane than the data plane.

PF/ALTQ is very much in the traditional in-kernel, per-packet model, so it hits those limits sooner.

I think a more accurate version of this is: unit tests were not only per-method but also per functionality. This was often called BDD (Behavior Driven Development), e.g. Ruby's cucumber. Your intuition here is correct though.

Since the 90s, New Zealand laws have been written in clear, modern, accessible English. The end result is the broader population understands it more and can also reason about it while it’s up for debate before being passed.

I think the ambiguity in the first two amendments has to do more with the specific text rather than plain English itself being deficient.

Sometimes it’s done to fit into an existing tool/database that has a preexisting limit. Or when the hash is used only as a locator rather than for integrity.

Not a good practice imo but people are pragmatic.

Fun fact: docker started as bash, then moved to python before settling on golang.

Also, in a 2013 docker meetup, someone wrote a docker clone in bash.

People want to learn! Hopefully things like this help them.

I'm guessing the decision comes down to ease of use for people to participate in mirroring. My underestanding is IPFS tends to require more infrastructure, and still requires someone to pin the data.

Many bittorrent clients let you click a button to continue seeding the data over time.

On the first point, OPA is much older than OpenFGA. To really illustrate the point, OPA became a graduated project about a year before OpenFGA had their first code drop in the public GitHub repo. The OpenFGA people are aware of OPA and I'm sure they learned from the tradeoffs OPA made.

To the main point, what you described reflects the current trends of authorization. Define a data model, define data that adheres to that model, write declarative rules that consume that model, make a decision based on those rules.

Where things really start to differ is the kind of data that they bind against and how do you write rules. E.g. OPA is often used for either ABAC (Attribute) or RBAC (Roles) while OpenFGA is looking at ReBAC (Relationships). Each has their complexity tradeoffs, depending on the system being implemented. How easy or difficult a system makes these kinds of checks has a significant impact on how you write policies.

Hope this helps!

Good question! The term is more generic, introducing something to an existing system to begin a chain reaction.

There are some applications where the ability to vectorize the headers and operate on them with SIMD help. These types of apps tend to pin a full core to do only packet processing though. Also, syscall are expensive. A lot of work is going into making the APIs async while avoiding syscalls.

Interestingly, the fastest CPU based network switches tend to do full kernel bypass. The kernel is generally slow compared to OVS and VPP, especially when they traverse over something like DPDK.

If you secure a loan for or lease a car, isn’t insurance mandatory for completion of the transaction? If so, how are most people still driving Kias off the lot if they can’t get insurance?

Ora are people getting insurance and finding their policies unrenewable?

It’s probably validated by a human before the message is deployed.

Agreed, one way to help mitigate this is to establish Layer 7 security controls, rather than implicitly trust the network. Tailscale shouldn't be the sole security control in any environment.

Thank you for mentioning this! I wrote docker save and load, and I’m happy to hear that it helped you!