undefined | Better HN

0 pointsamluto1y ago0 comments

> Low latency for a single event is never going to have mechanistic sympathy, will be a colossal waste of most of your system.

Excuse me? I maintain a production system that cares about low latency for single events. Declaring that it doesn’t have “mechanistic sympathy” entirely misses the point. Of course I’m not squeezing the most throughput out of every cycle of my CPU. I have a set of design requirements, I understand what the kernel and CPU and IO system do under the hood, and I designed the system to make the most of the resources at hand to achieve the design requirements. Which, in this case, are minimal latency for single events or small groups of events, and io_uring would have no benefit.

(I can steam in events at a very nice rate as measured in events/sec, but I never tried to optimize that, and I should not try to optimize that because it would make the overall system perform worse.)

0 comments

jauntywundrkind1y ago

You aren't using your chips efficiently. That's basically it. Maybe your use case justifies it but you are not taking advantage of a massive part of what chips do. That's on you. And it does make you a pretty weird different use case than most software development.

Fine, you've talked you yourself deeply into a conviction that async doesn't and won't ever matter for you. But man, most people are properly doing the right thing by optimizing for throighput, not single events, and async has altered the game on amazingly colossally positive ways for computing efficiency.

immibis1y ago

Squeezing every ounce of latency out of a system is just as valid mechanical sympathy as squeezing out every ounce of throughput.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse