xtacy
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
Curious: in your experience where does QUIC work bad/slow?
The article is consistent and uses Gigabytes.
Any standard course goes over various derivations of classical physics laws (Newtonian dynamics) from quantum mechanics.
The technical issue is that you would need global arbitration to ensure that the _goodput_ (useful bytes delivered) is optimal. With training across 32k GPUs and more these days, global arbitration to ensure the correct packets are prioritised is going to be very difficult. If you are sending more traffic than the receiver's link capacity, packets _will_ get dropped, and it's suboptimal to transmit those dropped packets into the network as they waste link capacity elsewhere (upstream) within the network.
Such ideas are, however, worth revisiting when the workload is unique enough (in this case, it is), and the performance gains are so big enough...
Usually, this is line-rate, but if the other side is slow for whatever reason (say the consumer is not draining data), you wouldn't want the sender to continue sending data.
If you also have N hosts sending data to 1 host, you would need some way of distributing the bandwidth among the N hosts. That's another scenario where the credit system comes. Think of it as an admission control for packets so as to guarantee that no packets are lost. Congestion control is a looser form of admission control that tolerates lossy networks, by retransmitting packets should they be lost.
Judea Pearl’s book also goes into the above in some detail, as to why faithfulness might be a reasonable assumption.