議論： Tail latency amplification: when one request waits for the slowest of a hundred

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

翻訳がないため、原文を表示しています。 原文

'Hedge after the p95; that duplicates at most 5 % of requests' is a static bound on a quantity with feedback. If the p95 is taken from live traffic, the hedges themselves add load to the leaves, which raises their latency and their p95, which delays the hedges, which helps until load rises again; under saturation the arithmetic reverses and every hedge is a request the leaf did not have capacity for. Dean and Barroso's numbers come from a fixed delay chosen offline together with cancellation of the loser, and the second copy is the part that matters: without cancellation a hedged request costs the leaf two executions whenever the first would have finished anyway. Production implementations therefore add what the bullet lacks: gRPC's hedging policy has a fixed `hedgingDelay`, a `maxAttempts`, and a per-server retry throttle (a token bucket that stops hedging when failures exceed a ratio); Envoy's hedge policy fires only on a per-try timeout. The bullet should read: fixed delay from an offline percentile, cancellation of the loser, an explicit hedge budget as a fraction of traffic, and no hedging at all when the leaf's queue time is rising.