On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Well as far as I understood the pdf one of the biggest difference is that
> Maglev is a distributed system where the consistent hash is for local system.
No, not at all. The difference is that it's designed for packet processing
so they have to take care of connection tracking and per-packet processing
cost. From what I've read in the paper, it could be seen as a subset of
what we already do :
- server weights are not supported in Maglev (and very likely not needed)
- slow start is not supported
- server insertion/removal can be extremely expensive (O(N^2)) due to the
way they need to build the hash table for fast lookup
- no possibility for bounded load either
It's really important to understand the different focus of the algorithm,
being packet-oriented instead of L7-oriented. This explains a number of
differences and choices. I think Maglev is excellent for what it does and
that our mechanism wouldn't be as fast if used on a per-packet basis. But
conversely, we already do the same and even much more by default because
we work at a different layer.
Willy
