onload VS seastar

Other than that, I heard there's some 3rd party network libraries that are generally considered lower latency, one of them I believe either redhat uses for one of their systems, or it is sponsored by them: https://github.com/Xilinx-CNS/onload

I mean really you want to be doing some kind of (kernel network bypass with some sort of system programming language like C++ for low latency trading systems like this. Arb trading is usually not worth it unless you have a ton of expertise or some crazy mathematical edge that can offset. Plus you need to be guaranteed to execute the trade you ask for which most average joes don't have.

How about the x2 series from Xilinx?

It comes from solarflare who have a long pedigree of low-latency smartnics. They used to supply Cloudflare, and also supply like 50% of fintechs/financial markets.

You can also just use openonload to accelerate your programs. In this case just doing straight linux socket programming, which can be accelerated without dpdk. Or just use the generic linux driver if necessary.

https://github.com/Xilinx-CNS/onload

Ahki SingHania - Akhi is the engineering manager for the Execution team. He has a background in operating systems and networking. Before working on the Internet Computer, he worked on OpenOnload and Barrelfish.

https://github.com/Xilinx-CNS/onload any good?

It used to be openonload.org which seems to redirect to https://github.com/Xilinx-CNS/onload for the source to onload.

Hi talawahtech. Thanks for the exhaustive article.

I took a short look at the benchmark setup (https://github.com/talawahtech/seastar/blob/http-performance...), and wonder if some simplifications there lead to overinflated performance numbers. The server here executes a single read() on the connection - and as soon as it receives any data it sends back headers. A real world HTTP server needs to read data until all header and body data is consumed before responding.

Now given the benchmark probably sends tiny requests, the server might get everything in a single buffer. However every time it does not, the server will send back two responses to the server - and at that time the client will already have a response for the follow-up request before actually sending it - which overinflates numbers. Might be interesting to re-test with a proper HTTP implementation (at least read until the last 4 bytes received are \r\n\r\n, and assume the benchmark client will never send a body).