About a decade ago in the High Performance Computing (HPC) market, a precursor market for High Frequency Trading (HFT), there was a dust up regarding the effectiveness of Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA). One of Myricom's senior researchers wrote an article for HPCWire titled "A Critique of RDMA" that set off a chain reaction of critical response articles:
- "Is RDMA Really That Bad"
- "A Tutorial of the RDMA Model"
- "A good example of RDMA people doing marketing without any technical clue.."
- "Why Compromise?"
- "Why Pretend?"
Now RDMA has had a decade to improve as it spread from Infiniband to Ethernet under the name RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE), but it still has performance issues. The origin of RDMA is cast in a closed lossless layer-2 Infiniband network with deterministic latency. Let's take a moment and adapt a NASCAR analogy. Think of RDMA as the vehicle and Infiniband as the track. One can take a Sprint Cup Series vehicle tuned for the Charlotte Motor Speedway, and take it for a spin on the local roads, but is that really practical (it certainly isn't legal)? Yes, its origin is in the stock car, but how well will it do in stop and go traffic, particularly on up hill grades? How about parallel parking, oh wait there's no reverse. Tight turns at low speeds, signaling, weather, etc. Sprint Cup Series vehicles are designed for 200MPH on a closed extremely well defined and maintained track. Ethernet by contrast is the road driven by everyone else, it's unpredictable with thousands of obstacles, and is ever changing.
Those familiar with Ethernet know that lossless and deterministic latency are not two characteristics often normally associated with this network fabric. Some of us have been around the block and lived through Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/DA) where packets often collided and random delays before retransmission attempts were common. TCP/IP was developed during these early days and it was designed with this packet loss as a key criteria. In the past three decades Ethernet has evolved considerably from its roots as a shared coax cable utilizing vampire taps to where we are today with dedicated twisted pair cabling and fiber optics, but on rare occasion packets are still dropped, and performance isn't always deterministic. Today most packet drops are as a result of network congestion. As discussed TCP/IP is equipped to handle this, unfortunately RoCE is not.
For RoCE to perform properly it requires a lossless layer-2 network. Essentially a NASCAR track overlaid onto our public roads. To accomplish this over a routed Ethernet network a new protocol was developed: Data Center Bridging Capabilities Exchange (shortened to DCB or DCBX). DCB is used at every hop of the network to negotiate and create a lossless layer-2 fabric on top of Ethernet. It achieves this by more tightly managing queue overflows and by adjusting network flow priorities as if they were traversing separate physical medias. In essence RoCE traffic is prioritized into essentially its own carpool lane ahead of other traffic in hopes of avoiding drops as a result of congestion. While this all sounds great, in talking with several large Web2.0 customers who've invested years in RoCE we learned that the vast number will never deploy it in production. There are far to many challenges to get and keep it working, and in high traffic volumes it suffers. Unlike Infiniband HPC clusters which are stood up as self contained networks (closed course race tracks) to address specific computational problems, Ethernets are in a constant state of flux with servers and switches being added and removed (our public road system) as the needs of the business change. To be clear TCP/IP is resilient to packet loss, while RoCE is not.
On the latency performance side of things, in the past decade we've achieved roughly one microsecond for a 1/2 round trip (a send + receive) with both TCP and UDP, when using Solarflare's OpenOnload. This is in line with RoCE latency which is also in the domain of one microsecond. Keep in mind that normal TCP or UDP transactions over 10GbE typically run in the range of 5 to 15 microseconds, so 1 microsecond is a huge improvement. By now you're likely saying "So what?" For most applications like file sharing, databases, etc... the difference between one microsecond and even fifteen microseconds is lost in the 10,000+ microseconds a whole transaction might take. It turns out though that there are new breeds of network latency sensitive applications that depend on technologies like Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe), Neural Networks, and high volume compound web transactions that can see significant improvements when latency is reduced. When low latency TCP is applied to these problems the performance gains are both measurable and significant.
So the next time someone suggests RoCE ask if they've considered a little known competing protocol called TCP/IP. While RoCE is the shiny new object, TCP/IP has had several decades of innovation behind it which explains why it's the underlying "language of the Internet". Consider asking those promoting RoCE what their porting budget is, and if they've factored in the cost of the new network switches that will be required to support DCB? It's very likely that the application they want to deploy already supports TCP/IP, and if latency and throughput are key factors then consider contacting Solarflare about OpenOnload. OpenOnload accelerates existing sockets based applications without having to modify them.