Over a million developers have joined DZone.

Low Latency Slides

DZone's Guide to

Low Latency Slides

· Java Zone
Free Resource

Just released, a free O’Reilly book on Reactive Microsystems: The Evolution of Microservices at Scale. Brought to you in partnership with Lightbend.

Last weekend was LJC Open Conference #4, and like many people I got a lot out of it.

My talk was up first which meant I could relax for the rest of the day.

Here are the slides

Note: the message size was 16 longs or 128 bytes. This makes a difference at higher throughputs.

In answer to @aix's questions

On slide 12; what are we measuring here, elapsed time from the message hitting the buffer to the "echo" reply showing up on the client socket?
In each message I add a timestamp as it is written. When each message is read, I compare the timestamp with the current time. I sort the results and take the middle / 50%tile as typical timings and the worst 0.01% as the 99.99%tile.
What's causing the large difference between "nanoTime(), Normal" and "RDTSC, Normal" in the bottom half of the slide (2M/s)?
The reason for taking the RDTSC directly (9 ns) is that System.nanoTime() is quite slow on Centos 5.7 (180 ns) and the later is a system calls which may disturb the cache. At modest message rate 200K/s (one message every 5000 ns) the difference is minor however as the message rates increase 2M/s (one message every 500 ns) the addition to latency is significant. Its not possible to send messages over 5 M/s if I was using System.nanoTime() where as with RDTSC I got up to 12 M/s. Without timing each message, I got a throughput of 17 M/s.

From http://vanillajava.blogspot.com/2011/11/low-latency-slides.html

Strategies and techniques for building scalable and resilient microservices to refactor a monolithic application step-by-step, a free O'Reilly book. Brought to you in partnership with Lightbend.


Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}