Other · Developers · Emerging
Inefficient network configuration leading to out-of-order delivery and slow application performance
Users face significant performance issues due to suboptimal network configurations and default settings, resulting in inefficient data handling and increased complexity.
Who experiences it: Developers
Momentum
0%
Pain
85
Competition
90
Opportunity
63/100
Signals over time
2 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 5 days. Confidence: low.
What people are saying Observed
“> Oh and this is going to cause out-of-order delivery and slow down user applications by a lot (because of channel bonding that looks like it's just left at the defaults), Doesn't lag default to hashing by something? I expect it to use the rss hash, or src/dest ip and hopefully port. On the number of layers, I totally agree. You can't fix the problems that come from having too many layers with more layers. And, you'll never get those delays back. If this really adds 5 ms (in each direction!), that's wild, but it would be clearly visible in pings... 10 ms round trip to get onto the network is like moving your servers 300 miles away from everyone. > Wish someone would pay me to do that. I feel you. Everyonce in a while, I get to do some really neat networking stuff, but I don't know how to make that my whole job.”
Hacker News · frustration
“This is very, very suboptimal. I like the VXLAN support a lot, and of course this will have a lot of features while requiring minimal actual network knowledge (good luck getting everything to work correctly when combined, but you can certainly configure them ... and so you're making it the customer's problem) Oh and this is going to cause out-of-order delivery and slow down user applications by a lot (because of channel bonding that looks like it's just left at the defaults), it is horribly inefficient. People don't put the host network either next to the VMs or on a separate network card for nothing. In their case a packet walk would show: 1) guest userspace -> guest kernel 2) guest kernel virtio_net (hopefully) -> host kernel virtio_net 3) host kernel virtio_net -> host kernel 4) host kernel -> OVS vswitch data path 5) OVS vswitch data path -> host kernel bridge port 6) host kernel bridge port -> host kernel switch/networking stack 7) host kernel switch/networking stack -> host outgoing bonding virtual port 8) host outgoing bonding virtual port -> physical port Each of these steps requires at the very least a memory allocation”
Hacker News · frustration
Why now? AI inference
Existing solutions Observed
- Cisco Network Assistant · unknown · complaints: Limited support for non-Cisco devices, Can be complex for beginners, Occasional performance issues with large networks
- SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor · $1,495/year for 100 nodes · complaints: High cost for smaller organizations, Steep learning curve for new users, Resource-intensive on the server
- Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud · unknown · complaints: Complex setup and configuration, Can be expensive for smaller teams, Occasional false positives in alerts
- NetScaler (Citrix ADC) · unknown · complaints: Complex configuration process, High cost for full feature set, Limited documentation for advanced features
- MikroTik RouterOS · $45 for a license · complaints: Steep learning curve for beginners, User interface can be confusing, Limited official support options
There is a lack of affordable and user-friendly network configuration solutions specifically designed for developers that address issues of out-of-order delivery and slow application performance. Most competitors either have complex setups, high costs, or steep learning curves, making them less accessible for small to medium-sized teams. Additionally, many existing solutions do not adequately support non-Cisco devices or provide sufficient documentation for advanced features.
See the full evidence, competitor gap matrix and opportunity report.
Free account. No credit card.