Looks like they're missing the obvious optimisation of putting the record data right after the CacheEntry members instead of allocating memory separately though. But that might just be me as a C-programmer talking and not be all that easy in Rust.
For the curious, this is technically possible in Rust using a dynamically sized type [1], but in practice is difficult and doesn't really play nice with the rest of the language. The nomicon entry concludes with "Yes, custom DSTs are a largely half-baked feature for now." [2]
Depends on how the CacheEntry is stored, it's probably stored in a slice of &[CacheEntry] which precludes storing the record data alongside it as the size of each entry must be fixed.
These seem like some fairly standard approaches for reducing memory usage. I can't help to think that the approach of joining several distinct list into a single one in some way undercuts Rust's safety guarantees.
If you previous had three distinct Vec objects, then Rust would guarantee that you can't index out of bounds. If you now put all those objects into a single Vec and rely on offsets, then you now open the door to indexing out of range of these sub-slices without any panics.
It's a minor point, and it doesn't really invalidate the optimization, but I'm surprised the article didn't mention it.
I think it’s more of a time vs code tradeoff, if done properly.
For example in the Vec case, you could theoretically build an alternative which encodes the “three sections” property internally, and ensures correctness at construction time for the pointers. Not as completely safe as a Vec, but you can still get similar benefits for the “business logic”.
But I agree, just having a custom structure that does not provide a safe wrapper around this would be sacrificing standard guarantees.
With my own MaraDNS, I aggressively optimized the memory usage of blacklist entries by having a single really big malloc() to allocate the memory for the entries, then traversing that memory block for potentially blacklisted entries.
When I was using one malloc() per entry, a large blacklist took up 237 megabytes of memory. The same blacklist, once optimized to be loaded with a single malloc() call, only took up 9.5 megabytes of memory.
One question the article doesn't answer is: why are they cacheing at all? If your cache is that big it isn't a cache. How much bigger is the dataset in question? There are 250 billion entries. Assuming 80/20, that implies 1.25 trillion records?
What's the speed of service/response time relative to the data source?
At that point it might be enough to replace your multiple caches with fewer in-RAM databases?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this powers 1.1.1.1, it doesn't front an internal dataset. A cache miss hits a nameserver. Which is to say, the dataset is "every DNS record in the world"
I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially with smart caching in front of database. 100TB of flash is a good bit cheaper than 100TB of memory
You have to cache, cloudflare doesn't know all the records ahead of time, they have to do recursive lookups to the authoritative servers that own the records and that is only good for the period of the TTL of the record. There is no "global" DNS record database or something like that.
It's a recursive resolver. The global DNS dataset is not something you could collect to serve directly vs caching from observations.
The data source is authoritative name servers operated by third parties, some of which are slow on their own, some of which are behind slow or lossy networks. Origin response times vary between probably 1 ms and 2 seconds +/- origins that never respond.
I've run into issues with using public wifi when I override my MacBook's DNS server to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8. I believe this is because captive portals require custom resolution of the name captive.apple.com. And external DNS servers will not resolve that correctly to the local gateway's authorization page.
The most interesting result to me is that the richer parsed representation was not necessarily the faster one. If the hot path is mostly “read from cache and serialize back to DNS,” parsing everything upfront only to serialize it again can become unnecessary work and hurt locality....
You start, get the type & length, and then that is how many bytes you read.
Some issues with that when you deserialize, from a raw stream in to `[u8; 4096]` buffer, the alignment is only guaranteed to be on 1 byte, not 4 bytes.
In practice it is 4 bytes, but if you run those tests with Miri, you'll get yelled at. So the fix there is to declare the buffer with a type that mandates the alignment of the largest type that you're going to be deserializing.
So then you start your buffer as follows: `[u32; 1024]`, and with `slice::from_raw_parts` you get to turn that into `[u8; 4096]` with the expected alignment.
As an exercise I wrote a streaming parser for netlink, the current existing package serializes everything, all at once.
Rule 1. You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
Rule 2. Measure. Don't tune for speed until you've measured, and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
Rule 3. Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get big, use Rule 2 first.)
Rule 4. Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.
Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming.
Notice rules are ordered. You don't optimize until you know you need it. They started with a data structure they though would be fine. Clearly it was fine since it worked and they decided it was later worth optimizing.
It is often not worth optimising in the early days. You don't know how popular it will become, you might not know how many DNS records you will hold, it was possibly written in an earlier language and ported as-is.
At the point someone queries the 100TB of RAM, then maybe it is worth revisiting but even that has risks. You have to design the migration path, have fallback mechanisms etc.
It only looks super obvious in hindsight and the well explained blog post. when a team of 5 is tasked with getting a completely new DNS up at the scale and integrate well with cloudflare.
if you spend cycles on nitty gritty opinions like this time to market goes out further and further out. some napkin math, 130 gen13 servers cost "only" ~$2.6M. relative to the importance of the 1.1.1.1 and the market at the time. that is nothing to cloudflare.
this is not to say good system design does not matter. it very much does, but making that call at that time would've butchered the prodcut very much similar to google+, youtube etc.
This one also looks pretty obvious "in foresight" (using the same tools that existed back then. Maybe owner dedupe might be less obvious and require a bit of knowledge and probing into actual data, but for rw vs ro you are fine knowing nothing?) and you forgot the napkin math re. how much your precious "time to market" would have been delayed by.
It's also not nothing, otherwise it would never be optimized away now, but left as is. After all, wasting time on optimization delays "time to market" for other useful features.
I also don't get the reference to YouTube, it's a very successful product, how was it butchered by good system design???
Premature optimization argument fits right in. Now that memory is up to 10x more expensive it is worth considering optimizing programs with large memory footprint.
One of the "evils" of premature optimization is how much time you spend on the optimization vs. the benefit you get from it. If your goal is correctness and shipping fast and you're not memory constrained then spending time using the least amount of memory is a waste of time specifically because you want to ship fast.
Another interesting thing that happens is you don't necessarily know what form your actual optimizations will need to take. Later when your systems grow you discover the suboptimal parts you hadn't optimized for.
Very early on at Cloudflare I worked on part of the DNS infrastructure that took DNS records from the UI and got them in a state for actual authoritative serving. The system had been constructed anticipating Cloudflare having millions of customers with unique domains, but it had not been constructed for a single customer with a single domain with millions of records. This caused a periodic slow down in DNS record updating while the system churned on that one customer.
In a different job I worked on a piece of optimization software that needed to keep track of "node" A is reachable from node "B". This had been implemented as a matrix (literally a malloced NxN matrix of ints storing 0 or 1) which worked really well for small systems. But you'd be out of memory really fast on a large project. I replaced the matrix with a hash table and all was good because the matrix was actually really sparse.
Absolutely true, but I will say that LLMs have changed the equation somewhat.
With a rather short prompt, claude/codex will take your code, write a harness, profile it, build experiments, profile those, and give some pretty solid advice which one to pick. Then integrate the changes. It's the kind of goal-directed, bite-sized job that LLMs excel at. Extremely low-commitment.
Except for the whole "making changes in production at scale" problem, of course.
Engineers are expensive, especially good system engineers who are trained in your code base. Very possible that this just hadn't gotten to the top of the priority list.
I don't understand why you need training on your code base to design a cache format for read only vs rw workloads, but anyway yours is a comment about neglect, not the "evil" that would happen if you did that design
I see your point but disagree. Engineering is about constraints. Time, materials, labor, scope.
The “evil” of premature optimization is that it’s a misapplication of priority. If I have an acute medical problem that needs attention, it’s not the right time to talk about chloresterol and statins, get my broken leg set.
There’s always a tension between engineering management who needs to deliver a solution to the business and engineers who want to deliver a beautiful object.
> I don't understand why you need training on your code base to design a cache format
Because anyone willing to come in just to design your cache format is going to expect payment that is many multiples more than the engineers you already cannot afford? Long-term employees cost less, which brings them closer to being affordable, but you have to be able to keep them busy for long periods of time to realize that reduction in cost. A engineer who doesn't understand your codebase isn't going to be useful for very long.
Discussing trivial optimizations is a waste of valuable design time. You're never going to "forget" an optimization. The running system will remind you when the optimization is actually needed.
This is why system programming still matters.
Looks like they're missing the obvious optimisation of putting the record data right after the CacheEntry members instead of allocating memory separately though. But that might just be me as a C-programmer talking and not be all that easy in Rust.
For the curious, this is technically possible in Rust using a dynamically sized type [1], but in practice is difficult and doesn't really play nice with the rest of the language. The nomicon entry concludes with "Yes, custom DSTs are a largely half-baked feature for now." [2]
[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/dynamically-sized-types....
[2] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/exotic-sizes.html
Depends on how the CacheEntry is stored, it's probably stored in a slice of &[CacheEntry] which precludes storing the record data alongside it as the size of each entry must be fixed.
System programming always matters. Things are cheap until they aren't one day.
less ergonomic, but still totally doable
These seem like some fairly standard approaches for reducing memory usage. I can't help to think that the approach of joining several distinct list into a single one in some way undercuts Rust's safety guarantees.
If you previous had three distinct Vec objects, then Rust would guarantee that you can't index out of bounds. If you now put all those objects into a single Vec and rely on offsets, then you now open the door to indexing out of range of these sub-slices without any panics.
It's a minor point, and it doesn't really invalidate the optimization, but I'm surprised the article didn't mention it.
I think it’s more of a time vs code tradeoff, if done properly.
For example in the Vec case, you could theoretically build an alternative which encodes the “three sections” property internally, and ensures correctness at construction time for the pointers. Not as completely safe as a Vec, but you can still get similar benefits for the “business logic”.
But I agree, just having a custom structure that does not provide a safe wrapper around this would be sacrificing standard guarantees.
you could always do a .get into the vector and handle the error, it doesn't necessarily need to panic.
Thank being said in this case it should be impossible to index out of bounds so maybe a panic is warented.
Tools exist to serve us, not the other way around.
With my own MaraDNS, I aggressively optimized the memory usage of blacklist entries by having a single really big malloc() to allocate the memory for the entries, then traversing that memory block for potentially blacklisted entries.
When I was using one malloc() per entry, a large blacklist took up 237 megabytes of memory. The same blacklist, once optimized to be loaded with a single malloc() call, only took up 9.5 megabytes of memory.
https://samboy.github.io/blog/entries/MaraDNS.html#BlogEntry...
One question the article doesn't answer is: why are they cacheing at all? If your cache is that big it isn't a cache. How much bigger is the dataset in question? There are 250 billion entries. Assuming 80/20, that implies 1.25 trillion records?
What's the speed of service/response time relative to the data source?
At that point it might be enough to replace your multiple caches with fewer in-RAM databases?
It's an interesting problem.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this powers 1.1.1.1, it doesn't front an internal dataset. A cache miss hits a nameserver. Which is to say, the dataset is "every DNS record in the world"
I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially with smart caching in front of database. 100TB of flash is a good bit cheaper than 100TB of memory
Because it would be slower and have different scaling requirements than the ones they want.
You have to cache, cloudflare doesn't know all the records ahead of time, they have to do recursive lookups to the authoritative servers that own the records and that is only good for the period of the TTL of the record. There is no "global" DNS record database or something like that.
>that is only good for the period of the TTL of the record.
Not really, TTLs are often short, but IPs might not change for years.
You can probably generate your own TTL, at scale, and avoid many DNS requests.
then they would be breaking DNS at scale.
It's a recursive resolver. The global DNS dataset is not something you could collect to serve directly vs caching from observations.
The data source is authoritative name servers operated by third parties, some of which are slow on their own, some of which are behind slow or lossy networks. Origin response times vary between probably 1 ms and 2 seconds +/- origins that never respond.
They’re adding the cache consumed across all of their servers. It’s not one giant deep cache.
I've run into issues with using public wifi when I override my MacBook's DNS server to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8. I believe this is because captive portals require custom resolution of the name captive.apple.com. And external DNS servers will not resolve that correctly to the local gateway's authorization page.
That’s a Mac bug if so—it should be always using dumb udp/53 for captive detection, not some fancy DoH thing.
The most interesting result to me is that the richer parsed representation was not necessarily the faster one. If the hot path is mostly “read from cache and serialize back to DNS,” parsing everything upfront only to serialize it again can become unnecessary work and hurt locality....
> we store the records as a single Box<[u8]> containing each record encoded as a 2-byte length prefix followed by its raw bytes.
Interestingly this is exactly how netlink works-ish: https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/focal/man3/netlink.3.ht...
You start, get the type & length, and then that is how many bytes you read.
Some issues with that when you deserialize, from a raw stream in to `[u8; 4096]` buffer, the alignment is only guaranteed to be on 1 byte, not 4 bytes.
In practice it is 4 bytes, but if you run those tests with Miri, you'll get yelled at. So the fix there is to declare the buffer with a type that mandates the alignment of the largest type that you're going to be deserializing.
So then you start your buffer as follows: `[u32; 1024]`, and with `slice::from_raw_parts` you get to turn that into `[u8; 4096]` with the expected alignment.
As an exercise I wrote a streaming parser for netlink, the current existing package serializes everything, all at once.
I'll buys some spare RAM you now have. I only need 64GB.
> Once we store a DNS response in the cache, however, we never modify it again. The capacity field serves no purpose, but still costs 8 bytes per Vec
Were there no design discussions/reviews when the system was setup to catch trivial things like this?
Rob Pikes 5 Rules of Programming:
Rule 1. You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
Rule 2. Measure. Don't tune for speed until you've measured, and even then don't unless one part of the code overwhelms the rest.
Rule 3. Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small. Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that n is frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. (Even if n does get big, use Rule 2 first.)
Rule 4. Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.
Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260314210910/https://users.ece...
> Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming
So you agree that they should've designed the system to use the appropriate data structure from the beginning?
Notice rules are ordered. You don't optimize until you know you need it. They started with a data structure they though would be fine. Clearly it was fine since it worked and they decided it was later worth optimizing.
It is often not worth optimising in the early days. You don't know how popular it will become, you might not know how many DNS records you will hold, it was possibly written in an earlier language and ported as-is.
At the point someone queries the 100TB of RAM, then maybe it is worth revisiting but even that has risks. You have to design the migration path, have fallback mechanisms etc.
It's also often that you can avoid all those future migration/fallback risks and pains if you invest a little bit of design thinking upfront.
So how would you decide which path to take in situations like this?
It only looks super obvious in hindsight and the well explained blog post. when a team of 5 is tasked with getting a completely new DNS up at the scale and integrate well with cloudflare.
if you spend cycles on nitty gritty opinions like this time to market goes out further and further out. some napkin math, 130 gen13 servers cost "only" ~$2.6M. relative to the importance of the 1.1.1.1 and the market at the time. that is nothing to cloudflare.
this is not to say good system design does not matter. it very much does, but making that call at that time would've butchered the prodcut very much similar to google+, youtube etc.
This one also looks pretty obvious "in foresight" (using the same tools that existed back then. Maybe owner dedupe might be less obvious and require a bit of knowledge and probing into actual data, but for rw vs ro you are fine knowing nothing?) and you forgot the napkin math re. how much your precious "time to market" would have been delayed by.
It's also not nothing, otherwise it would never be optimized away now, but left as is. After all, wasting time on optimization delays "time to market" for other useful features.
I also don't get the reference to YouTube, it's a very successful product, how was it butchered by good system design???
Premature optimization argument fits right in. Now that memory is up to 10x more expensive it is worth considering optimizing programs with large memory footprint.
Using obviously better data structures the first time isn't premature optimization.
There was a reason for that field, but that reason never panned out.
Could you point to that reason?
How does that fit? What would be the evil of not wasting memory for many years at 1x?
One of the "evils" of premature optimization is how much time you spend on the optimization vs. the benefit you get from it. If your goal is correctness and shipping fast and you're not memory constrained then spending time using the least amount of memory is a waste of time specifically because you want to ship fast.
Another interesting thing that happens is you don't necessarily know what form your actual optimizations will need to take. Later when your systems grow you discover the suboptimal parts you hadn't optimized for.
Very early on at Cloudflare I worked on part of the DNS infrastructure that took DNS records from the UI and got them in a state for actual authoritative serving. The system had been constructed anticipating Cloudflare having millions of customers with unique domains, but it had not been constructed for a single customer with a single domain with millions of records. This caused a periodic slow down in DNS record updating while the system churned on that one customer.
In a different job I worked on a piece of optimization software that needed to keep track of "node" A is reachable from node "B". This had been implemented as a matrix (literally a malloced NxN matrix of ints storing 0 or 1) which worked really well for small systems. But you'd be out of memory really fast on a large project. I replaced the matrix with a hash table and all was good because the matrix was actually really sparse.
Absolutely true, but I will say that LLMs have changed the equation somewhat.
With a rather short prompt, claude/codex will take your code, write a harness, profile it, build experiments, profile those, and give some pretty solid advice which one to pick. Then integrate the changes. It's the kind of goal-directed, bite-sized job that LLMs excel at. Extremely low-commitment.
Except for the whole "making changes in production at scale" problem, of course.
Engineers are expensive, especially good system engineers who are trained in your code base. Very possible that this just hadn't gotten to the top of the priority list.
I don't understand why you need training on your code base to design a cache format for read only vs rw workloads, but anyway yours is a comment about neglect, not the "evil" that would happen if you did that design
I see your point but disagree. Engineering is about constraints. Time, materials, labor, scope.
The “evil” of premature optimization is that it’s a misapplication of priority. If I have an acute medical problem that needs attention, it’s not the right time to talk about chloresterol and statins, get my broken leg set.
There’s always a tension between engineering management who needs to deliver a solution to the business and engineers who want to deliver a beautiful object.
> I don't understand why you need training on your code base to design a cache format
Because anyone willing to come in just to design your cache format is going to expect payment that is many multiples more than the engineers you already cannot afford? Long-term employees cost less, which brings them closer to being affordable, but you have to be able to keep them busy for long periods of time to realize that reduction in cost. A engineer who doesn't understand your codebase isn't going to be useful for very long.
You explained why it's beneficial for other workloads, but the original point was about this specific design
Boxed slice isn't really the most well known type/optimization, There usually aren't that many vec's that it makes a big difference.
Discussing trivial optimizations is a waste of valuable design time. You're never going to "forget" an optimization. The running system will remind you when the optimization is actually needed.
it was working so no one thought to check