undefined | Better HN

0 pointsQuothling1y ago0 comments

> The only possible way to make this statement with confidence is never measuring the overhead of tasks and goroutines. Tasks are lighter than goroutines, especially memory-wise.

> In general, I think you either never worked with .NET at all

What a wild assumption to make, so I'll maybe counter it with the same claim for Go because what you write here isn't really true. It might be if you use standard goroutines which run with 8 KB stacks (even worse on Windows where you're paying an additional 4k because... well because Windows), but you both can and should modify this.

https://go.dev/src/runtime/stack.go

> Try spawning one million tasks and then one million goroutine.

I can run around 50 million goroutines on my macbook air. I can barely run 100k tasks. Task which again are asynchronous, which comes with a range of issues that you conveniently skipped talking about. I think that it is fine that you love C# and apparently hate Go, but maybe your personal opinion is getting in the way a little?

0 comments

neonsunset1y ago

This is impossible. Baseline allocation size for an asynchronously yielding task starts at ~100B (because synchronously completing task may not allocate at all, some tasks are extended with additional pooling mechanic to not allocate in all scenarios through pooling or otherwise, like async socket operations).

What sample do you use for comparison? Maybe your gorotines do nothing but sleep and tasks do active work? I imagine Go would struggle even with just single allocation per goroutine if they do anything more if it is literally >= 50M goroutines. For example, BEAM already starts to struggle with 1M, at least spawning-wise, and Go runs out of memory easily at 10-30M if the only modification is GOMAXPROCS (which is what realistically everyone does).

Also hot splitting is very fun to fix by randomly rearranging the code.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse