Disruptor VS abseil-cpp

https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/#_what_is_the_disr.... Unfortunately IIUC writing this in Go still prevents the spin-locked acceptor thread from achieving the kind of performance you could get in a non-GC language, unless you chose to disable GC, so I'd guess Envoy is still faster.

https://gnet.host/docs/quickstart/ it's nice that you can use this simply though. Envoy is kind of tricky to setup with custom filters, so most of the time it's just a standalone binary.

[0] https://blog.envoyproxy.io/envoy-threading-model-a8d44b92231...

[1] https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/#_what_is_the_disr...

See also the Java LMAX Disruptor https://github.com/LMAX-Exchange/disruptor

I've built a similar lock-free ring buffer in C++11 https://github.com/posterior/loom/blob/master/doc/adapting.m...

"Why we chose Java for our High-Frequency Trading application"

https://medium.com/@jadsarmo/why-we-chose-java-for-our-high-...

LMAX Disruptor customers

https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/

Among many other examples.

Current documentation

https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/

LMAX Disruptor has on their wiki that average latency to send a message from one thread to another at 53 nanoseconds. For comparison a mutex is like 25 nanoseconds and more if Contended but a mutex is point to point synchronization.

The great thing about it is that multiple threads can receive the same message without much more effort.

https://github.com/LMAX-Exchange/disruptor/wiki/Performance-...

https://gist.github.com/rmacy/2879257

I am dreaming of language that is similar to Smalltalk that stays single threaded until it makes sense to parallise.

I am looking for problems to parallelism that are not big data. Parallelism is like adding more cars to the road rather than increasing the speed of the car. But what does a desktop or mobile user need to do locally that could take advantage of the mathematical power of a computer? I'm still searching.

Database config should be two connection strings, 1 for the admin user that creates the tables and anther for the queue user. Everything else should be stored in the database itself. Each queue should be in its own set of tables. Large blobs may or may not be referenced to an external file.

Shouldn't a message send be worst case a CAS. It really seems like all the work around garbage collection would have some use for in-memory high speed queues.

Are you familiar with the LMAX Disruptor? Is is a Java based cross thread messaging library used for day trading applications.

https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/

Disruptor for inter-thread messaging

I have never worked in any industries where a perf margin was that small. It is funny, in HFT there are folks using Lmax (Java) and then you have folks writing their own TCP/IP stacks on FPGAs to do trading.

Yeah, it's nice! And Abseil does it, IFF you use LLVM libc++.

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/string...

The standard adopted it as resize_and_overwrite. Which I think is a little clunky.

This may be confusing to those familiar with Google's libraries. The baseline is the Go BTree, which I personally never heard of until just now, not the C++ absl::btree_set. The benchmarks aren't directly comparable, but the C++ version also comes with good microbenchmark coverage.

https://github.com/google/btree

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/contai...

An implementation of call_once that accommodates callbacks that throw: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/base/c...

I wouldn't say it's that cryptic. It's just a few bitwise rotations/shifts/xor operations.

You can see hashing optimizations as well https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sort..., https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/74eee2aff683cc7d...

I was one of the members who reviewed expertly what has been done both in sorting and hashing. Overall it's more about assembly, finding missed compiler optimizations and balancing between correctness and distribution (in hashing in particular).

It was not revolutionary in a sense it hasn't found completely new approaches but converged to something incomprehensible for humans but relatively good for performance which proves the point that optimal programs are very inhuman.

Note that for instructions in sorting, removing them does not always lead to better performance, for example, instructions can run in parallel and the effect can be less profound. Benchmarks can lie and compiler could do something differently when recompiling the sort3 function which was changed. There was some evidence that the effect can come from the other side.

For hashing it was even funnier, very small strings up to 64 bit already used 3 instructions like add some constant -> multiply 64x64 -> xor upper/lower. For bigger ones the question becomes more complicated, that's why 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation. Distribution on real workloads was good, it almost passed smhasher and we decided it was good enough to try out in prod. We did not rollback as you can see from abseil :)

But even given all that, it was fascinating to watch how this system was searching and was able to find particular programs can be further simplified. Kudos to everyone involved, it's a great incremental change that can bring more results in the future.

Check out https://abseil.io. It offers absl::optional, which is a backport of std::optional.