Tailscale reduces packet queue depths to lower memory and latency
3 Yesterday · 16h ago · 1 article · 3 posts · 3 sources · development 3 of 3
Tailscale shortened packet queues after testing showed most queue depth went unused, reducing waiting time and memory overhead while freeing space for harder-working nodes.
“On Linux and Android, Tailscale now leaves those packets where they landed. It identifies where each one starts and ends inside the single large read instead of copying it somewhere new.”
Tailscale · hn ↗Tailscale VPN and networking platform company
The whole story articlesposts the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
Reported in the same hours no headline names this development itself — these 1 claim were published in its stretch
-
1 outlet Making Tailscale Faster
first by HN Frontpage, 19h ago
What people said 12 voices · verbatim
-
(Tailscale cofounder) I see a few comments here that using kernel wireguard would make it faster; it’s not really that simple. In fact, for a while (and we wrote a blog post about it), our optimizations made wireguard-go faster than kernel wireguard because it was better optimized. They adopted some of those improvements and now we’re on to the…
-
H
Making Tailscale Faster L: https:// tailscale.com/blog/making-tail scale-faster C: https:// news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4 9819880 posted on 2026.09.23 at 13:49:07 (c=0, p=3)
-
In my opinion, this is Tailscale's largest issue.It is slow. It cannot achieve speeds of greater than 1Gbps on clients systems (Windows & Mac), where you'd normally see it being used. On Linux, it struggles to achieve 10Gbps even when using a synthetic large packet benchmark [1]. With an IMIX benchmark, it would not be competitive whatsoever.This…
-
H
Making Tailscale Faster Link: https:// tailscale.com/blog/making-tail scale-faster Discussion: https:// news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4 9819880
-
Re: Tailscale and speeds, I wish Tailscale had a better story about relay / DERP flexibility.Assume we have devices a, b and c, which are basically in different segments of the same network and have nice pings to each other. We're trying to ssh from a to c, but NAT traversal isn't possible. Both a and c can do NAT traversal to b.Instead of a going…
-
Wireguard with PQ won't be Wireguard, anymore. It'll just be a rehash of IKE+IPsec. What made Wireguard better was the very simple handshake and minimal state, but no PQ algorithms can support that simplicity because the keys are too large and/or not as simple to use as ECC.Might as well switch to IPsec. Everything is already in place, including…
-
I used to LOVE tailscale. Then I put wireguard on my home network exposed to the internet with a dynamic DNS provider and it immediately became irrelevant. Not only is raw wireguard more stable (I don't have to fight the DNS issues on my mobile phones) it feels faster and is amazingly simple to set up.
-
Hey why do you hard code certain android apps to be excluded from Tailscale with split tunneling without giving users any way to disable split tunneling for these apps? It doesn't matter how you think VPN does or does not affect these apps, it's really awful anti-user behavior.
-
> But, wireguard also needs to update to support post-quantumIt's quantum-resistant if you define a PSK. You still have to distribute the key out of band, but you already have to do that anyways for the public keys of the peers.
-
I wonder if the post's focus on Linux/Android is just because that's where they started, or because they're leveraging techniques that are only possible on Linux/Android?
-
Any chance the Apple TV can get a performance boost? Specially as an exit node. It always gives very little bandwidth. Thank you!
-
In our use case latency went parabolic at 250 sessions pumping just 60 mb/s through a tunnel.
All 3 developments of Tailscale ships performance upgrades for Linux, Android… →
Hacker NewsMastodonNewswires