Why Discord is switching from Go to Rust(blog.discordapp.com) |
Why Discord is switching from Go to Rust(blog.discordapp.com) |
B) They weren't allocating a lot, and Go was enforcing a GC sweep every 2 minutes, and it was spending a lot of time on their LRU cache. To "reduce allocations" they had to cut their cache down, which negatively impacted latency.
> These latency spikes definitely smelled like garbage collection performance impact, but we had written the Go code very efficiently and had very few allocations. We were not creating a lot of garbage.
The problem was due to the GC scanning all of their allocated memory and taking a long time to do so, regardless of it all being necessary and valid memory usage.
In many languages with GC you can actually do manual memory management relatively easily with few helper functions. You write your own allocate() and free() functions/methods. When you allocate, you check the free list first, if nothing is available, you do normal allocation. When you call free you add the object into a free list. If you memory management leaks, it triggers GC.
Usually you need to do that kind of stuff to only in few places and few data structures to cut GC 90%.
It's clear that Discord use Rust a lot, and that they are looking for any excuse to replace existing code with Rust code.
The article also states that is was quite easy to port over and didn't need any quirky tuning.
Don't really know about Go versus Rust for this purpose, but don't really care because read states (like nearly everything that makes Discord less like IRC) is an anti-feature in any remotely busy server. Anything important enough that it shouldn't be missed can be pinned, and it encourages people to derail conversations by replying out of context to things posted hours or days ago.
The big thing IMO is that once started I normally leave discord running, and most actions within discord itself feel very snappy - E.g. You click on a voice channel and you're instantly there. I think that's what they mean, they're trying to keep the delay for such an action low. Sometimes you click a voice Chanel and there's a few seconds of delay, those for some reason more annoying then the long (ish) startup time
Desktop development is a total wasteland these days -- there isn't nearly as much effort put into optimization as server side. They're not paying for your local compute, so they can waste as much of it as they want.
Rust won again.
Write their code in a functional style. Get the benefits of the Erlang BEAM platform.
Their system runs over the web, so time sensitivity isn’t as important, in comparison to video games, VR, or AR.
Anyone ever done a performance comparison breakdown between something like Elixir vs. Rust?
No. It would have been unshippably bad. BEAM is generally fairly slow. It was fast at multitasking for a while, but that advantage has been claimed by several other runtimes in 2020. As a language, it is much slower than Rust. Plus, if you tried to implement a gigantic shared cache map in Erlang/Elixir, you'd have two major problems: One is that you'd need huge chunks of the map in single (BEAM) processes, and you'd get hit by the fact BEAM is not set up to GC well in that case. It wants lots of little processes, not a small number of processes holding tons of data. Second is that you'd be trading what in Rust is "accept some bytes, do some hashing, look some stuff up in memory" with generally efficient, low-copy operations, with "copy the network traffic into an Erlang binary, do some hashing, compute the PID that actually has the data, send a message to that PID with the request, wait for the reply message, and then send out the answer", with a whole lot of layers that expect to have time to make copies of lots of things. Adding this sort of coordination into these nominally fast lookups is going to slow this to a crawl. It's like when people try to benchmark Erlang/Elixir/Go's threading by creating processes/goroutines to receive two numbers and add them together "in parallel"; the IPC completely overshadows the tiny amount of work being done. (They mention tokio, but that's still going to add a lot less coordination overhead than Erlang messages.)
Go is a significantly better language for this use case than Elixir/Erlang/BEAM is, let alone Rust.
(This is not a "criticism" of Erlang/Elixir/BEAM. It's an engineering analysis. Erlang/Elixir/BEAM are still suitable for many tasks, just as people still use Python for many things despite the fact it would be a catastrophically bad choice for this particular task. This just isn't one of the tasks it would be suitable for.)
The article says that the data is basically "per-user", indicating that the active client connection process could be used to store the data. It already hosts other data related to the client (connection) anyway. I think updating and querying it globally would be the trouble in that case.
Another could be storing the data in mnesia, BEAM's internal mutable in-memory DB. Probably better, but still not ideal to solve this.
Anyway, you're right in that no matter how you'd try to solve this problem on pure Elixir you'd still be seeing some bottlenecks because BEAM just isn't very well suitable for this kind of problems, hence Rust.
But can you elaborate on what you mean by other platforms catching up with Elixir's inherent concurrency advantages? Which modern platforms give similar features?
> It wants lots of little processes, not a small number of processes holding tons of data
Elixir/Erlang is good for handling a lot of little processes with a small amount of data. And not for a small number of processes, handling a large amount of data.
The little processes holds smaller data, and it just gets dropped, after the function is done, instead of getting reclaimed by a garbage collector.
This is probably what makes Elixir/Erlang good for telecom equipment, like packet switching hardware, but not good for more complex software applications that may need to fetch and manipulate a lot of structured data in multiple stages.
In this case, does anyone know of Elixir’s maximum throughput?
Such as?
Garbage collection has gotten a lot of updates in the last 3 years. Why would you not take the exceedingly trivial step of just upgrading to the latest Go stable in order to at least try for the free win? From the go 1.12 release notes: “Go 1.12 significantly improves the performance of sweeping when a large fraction of the heap remains live. This reduces allocation latency immediately following a garbage collection.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This sounds like “we just wanted to try Rust, ok?” Which is fine. But like, just say that.
Also, as others have said, lots of big GC improvements were ignored by insisting on go1.9.2 and not the latest.
I just checked and as usually, I have an entry labeled "Discord Helper (Not Responding)" in my process list. I don't think i've ever seen it in a normal state.
I get for certain core code situations, you want to manage all memory safety yourself (or use built in static GC), but beyond that it seems to me at a higher level you'd rather have the automatic GC. Why burden all of your developers rather than just a core few?
I don't think GC issues is a compelling argument to move everything to Rust. I'm not saying there aren't compelling arguments, but that just seems a bit odd that that's their main argument.
However I think in total Rust is safer. E.g. Rust prevents a ton of race conditions in multithreaded code, which Go can not do.
> Embracing the new async features in Rust nightly is another example of our willingness to embrace new, promising technology. As an engineering team, we decided it was worth using nightly Rust and we committed to running on nightly until async was fully supported on stable.
> Changing to a BTreeMap instead of a HashMap in the LRU cache to optimize memory usage.
It is always an algorithm change
The thing is, you can allocate memory outside of Go, and GC will simply ignore such regions, since GC only scan regions known to it. (Mmap should work like a charm here.) A drawback is that pointers in such regions will not be counted, but it's easy to workaround by copying whole data, which is encouraged by the language itself.
TBH, Go sucks for storing a large amount of data. As you can see here, even the simplest cache can be problematic. The language is biased towards large datacenters, where the amount of available resources are less of a concern. Say, this problem can be solved by having external cache servers and extra nodes around them. Latency will not be idealistic, but the service will survive with minimal changes.
"Go sucked for us because we refused to own our tooling and make a special allocator for this service. Switching to Rust forced us to do that, and life got better"
I think this is a great write up of why they chose a different tool. I don't say it was the wrong decision, they make that argument pretty well too. I'm still surprised that either Go isn't malleable enough to have bent around the need, or they didn't feel it worth more effort than parameter tweaking to bend it so.
I'm quiet disappointed though they did not update their Go Version to 1.13[0][1] which would normally have remove the spike issue and thus he latency before they move to Rust...
Rust seems more performant with proper usage ( tokio + async ) but I'm more worried about the ecosystem that doesn't seem has mature has Go.
We could quote the recent[2] Drama with Actix...
[0]https://golang.org/doc/go1.13#runtime [1]https://golang.org/doc/go1.12#runtime [2]https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web-postmortem
In the words of Steve Klabnik "Rust has been an experiment in community building as much as an experiment in language building. Can we reject the idea of a BDFL? Can we include as many people as possible? Can we be welcoming to folks who historically have not had great representation in open source? Can we reject contempt culture? Can we be inclusive of beginners?" https://words.steveklabnik.com/a-sad-day-for-rust
The Actix issue was resolved, and Actix will continue under new maintainers (https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/1289). So I'd argue the answer to those questions is a 'yes'.
The problem to get down to the core of these issues are test cases. It seems, that neither the Go developers nor many other people have run into this as an issue - I only remember noticing the regular GC some years ago, but it was not an issue for me. As they have a real-life test case exposing this problem, they are possibly the only ones, who could verify a potential fix for the problem.
So, while it is great that they identified the problem and wrote a thorough blog piece about it, the only thing we learn from this is, that in Go 1.9 there was a latency issue every 2 minutes with their style of application/heap usage. Unfortunately, we don't know whether this problem was already addressed in later Go versions, and if not, whether there should be a way to control the automatic gc intervals to address this.
Once it's loaded, how much slower than Word is it?
Almost every single app I run auto-updates itself in some form.
But think of it this way, all the effort they put into their desktop app works on all major OSes without a problem. They even get to reuse most of the code for access from the browser, with no installation required.
Now imagine approaching your PM and saying "Look I know we put X effort into making our application work on all the platforms, but it would be even faster if we instead did 4x effort for native implementations + the browser".
[0] From what I've seen in the "gamer community" is that most gamers don't care that much about that kind of extra performance. Discord itself doesn't feel slow once it's started. Joining a voice channel is instant, quickly switching to a different server and then to a chat channel to throw in a some text is fast and seamless (Looking at you MS Teams!!!).
Sure Mumble/Teamspeak are native and faster, but where are their first party mobile apps and web clients? One of the incredible things Discord did to really aid in adoption was allow for web clients, so when you found some random person on the internet, you didn't have to tell them to download some chat client, they could try it through their browser first.
tl;dr
Yes electron apps can be slow, but discord IMO has fine client side performance, and they clearly do put resources into optimizing it. Yes it "could be faster" with native desktop apps, but their target community seems perfectly content as is.
I do think it's reasonable to get the startup time of Discord to be near what VS Code's startup times are. If we remove the updater, it actually starts pretty fast (chromium boot -> JS loaded from cache) is <1s on a modern PC. And there's so much more we can do from there, for example, loading smaller chunks in the critical "load and get to your messages path" - being able to use v8 heap snapshots to speed up starting the app, etc...
The slow startup time is very much an us problem, and not an electron problem and is something I hope we'll be able to address this year.
Electron startup time as well as v8 snapshots have been a hot topic for a looooong time. I actually started a pull request for it in 2015 [0]. My pull request was focusing on source code protection, but ANY information on how you use v8 snapshots, etc. would be awesome!
I'm also expecting some sort of sensible solution to this sort of concurrency challenge to simply be baseline expected functionality for the next generation of languages. Anyone sitting down in 2020 to write The Next Big Language who ignores the fact that by the time they're done, their CPUs are going to be 64-core and the GPUs will be several-hundred-thousand core is really going to be missing the boat.
I actually encourage Erlang partisans to consider this a win in the general sense. Quite serious. If you consider languages as a multi-decade conversation, almost everything Erlang "said" in the late 1990s and early 2000s is in fact proving out to be true. However, while Erlang was a trailblazer, it isn't going to be that Next Big Language, nor anything like it. It got a lot of things right, but it's got too much wrong to be the NBL, and even if you did the minimal fixes, the result wouldn't be backwards compatible with Erlang anymore so it'd be a new language.
A lot of Erlang partisans are making the error of thinking the next language needs to be just like Erlang, except perhaps more so. But that's not how progress gets made. The good ideas are ripped out at a much more granular level and recombined with all sorts of other ideas and the end result may be quite different than what you expect. Go, for instance, can very much be seen as a direct sequel to Erlang among other things, even though it may not seem to have "OTP" or "built-in multinode concurrency" or whatever other apparent bullet-list features Erlang has, because a lot of those bullet-list features are really just epiphenomena of the real underlying features. Rust has its own nods to Erlang too; the whole "ownership" thing comes from the experiences with both mutation and immutability in a threading environment. But rather than making "Erlang, but a bit moreso", you get something that takes the lessons, ponders on them for another 15 years, and produces something different. It isn't Erlang, because at the time that Erlang was being written (Joe Armstrong RIP), nobody had the experience to think of Rust and imagine it could make a practical language. (Nor am I entirely sure the computers of the time could have compiled it; even if we sat through the clock time I'm not sure Rust could be stuffed into a 1997 desktop computer's RAM.)
But on the client side, it's arguably the slowest to launch application I have installed even among other Electron apps. Perfectly fine.
This completely re-enforces my original statement: "Desktop development is a total wasteland these days -- there isn't nearly as much effort put into optimization as server side" Desktop having horrible startup performance is "fine" but a little GC jitter on the server requires a complete re-write from the ground up.
First and foremost, we do care deeply about desktop performance. We shipped this week a complete rewrite of our messages components, that come with a boatload of performance optimizations, in addition to a new design. We spent a lot of time to do that rewrite in addition to applying new styles, because given what we know now (and what's state of the art in React world), we can write the code better than we did 3+ years ago. In terms of total engineering time spent, the rewrite of messages actually took much longer than the rewrite of this service from go to rust.
That being said, the desktop app does load much slower than we'd like (and honestly than I'd like personally.) I commented in another thread why that is. That being said, the person who is writing backend data-services, is not the one who's going to be fixing the slow boot times (our native platform team). These are efforts that happen independently.
As for our motivations for using rust, I think saying that "a little GC jitter on the server requiring a complete rewrite" is one of many reasons we wanted to give rust a shot. We have some code that we know works in a Golang. We want to investigate the viability of Rust to figure out how it'd look like to write a data service in rust. We have this service that is rather trivial, and has some GC jitters (that we've been fine with for a year.) So, an engineer (the author of this blog post) spends some time last year to see what it'd look like to write an equivalent service in rust, how it'd perform, how easy it'd be, and what the general state of the ecosystem is like in practice.
I think it's easy to forget that a lot of work we do as engineers isn't all about what's 100% practical, but also about learning new things in order to explore new viable technologies. In this case, this project had a very clear scope and set of requirements (literally rewrite this thing that we know works), and a very well defined set of success criteria (should perform as-good or better, see if a lack of GC will improve latencies, get a working understanding of the state of the ecosystem and how difficult it would be to write future data services in rust vs go.) Given the findings in our rewrite of this service, running it in production, and now using features that have stabilized in rust, we're confident in saying that "in places where we would have used golang, we consider rust viable, and here's why, given our exercise in rewriting something from go to rust."
Given that this is a table of who is "online", I don't think that's per-user in the sense that you are inferring. I infer that it's not a whole bunch of little local data that doesn't interact, it's a big global table of who is online and not online, constantly being heavily read from and written to in real time. Consider from the perspective of Bob's Erlang process that he wants to go offline and notify all of his currently-online friends that is is going offline. Bob's Erlang process doesn't have that data. Bob's Erlang process is going to get it from the Big Table of Who's Online. That table is the problem; it can't be stored in Bob's Erlang process.
I was at least imagining that the table could be partitioned into pieces pretty trivially (first X bits of the hash), but with Erlang's design, that implies an IPC just to ask some server process to give me the PID of the chunk I need to talk to, which itself is going to bottleneck. (In practice we'd probably cheat and use a NIF to do that, but that amounts to an admission that Erlang can't do this, so....)
At smaller scales you could try to live update Bob's local information as it changes, but this breaks down in all sorts of ways at scales far smaller than Discord, scales much closer to "a single mid-sized company".
"Another could be storing the data in mnesia, BEAM's internal mutable in-memory DB."
I have used mnesia for loads literally a ten-thousandth as small as this, if that (I could probably tack two more zeros on there), and it breaks down. It is an absolutely ludicrous idea that mnesia could handle what Discord is doing here. Last I knew the official Erlang community consensus was basically that mnesia really shouldn't be used for anything serious; my experience backed that up.
I think a non-trivial part of the reason why Erlang hasn't taken off is that its community still seems to exist in 2003, where it's a really incredible unique language that solves huge problems that nobody else does. In 2003, it rather has a point. But a lot of things have learned from Erlang, and incorporated its lessons into newer designs, and moved on.
See my other comment for what other runtimes have Erlang's advantages, but I'd invite you just to consider what we seem to basically agree on here; Erlang would be wildly slower and require a lot more hardware than Rust, the Rust code probably wasn't that hard to write, ... and the Rust code is way more likely to be correct than the Erlang code, too. I mean, what more "catching up to Elixir's inherent concurrency advantages" in this context than "did a job Elixir couldn't possibly do" do you want?
I had no idea mnesia was that fragile though, what gives? What kind of issues did you encounter with it? What do you use now to solve those issues with Erlang/Elixir?
Sure, we all know Erlang doesn't shine in computationally intensive workloads. Obviously, Rust was the right call here. But stateful distributed soft real-time concurrency, can you really say with a straight face that Rust comes with all the same features as BEAM out-of-the-box? Or any other modern platform for that matter. I've yet to see Erlang/Elixir beaten in that particular niche.
I had ~10,000 devices in the field with unique identifiers creating long-term, persistent connections to a central cluster. An mnesia table stored basically $PERSISTENT_ID -> PID they are connected to. It needed to be updated when they connected and disconnected, which let me emphasize was a relatively rare occurrence; the ideal system would be connected for days at a time, not connecting & disconnecting dozens of times a minute. At most, reconnection flurries might occasionally occur where they'd all try to connect over the course of a few minutes (they had backoff code built in) if the cluster was down for some reason.
Mnesia fell over. A lot. All I could find online as an explanation was basically "yeah, don't do that with mnesia". Bizarrely, it wasn't the connection flurries that did it, either... it was the normal "maybe a few dozen events per second" that tended to do it. Erlang itself was usually fine. (Although for machines right next to each other in a rack, I did lose the clustering more often than I'd like, and have to hit the REPL to re-associated nodes together. Much less often than mnesia corrupted itself, though.)
"can you really say with a straight face that Rust comes with all the same features as BEAM out-of-the-box?"
Well, that's another way of looking at what I was trying to say. That's the wrong question. Rust doesn't need "all the same features as BEAM". Rust needs "the features necessary to do the work". While the Erlang community is looking for a language that has "all the same features as BEAM" and smugly congratulating themselves that no other language seems to have cracked that yet, a number of languages are passing them by by implementing different features. Many of those languages, as I said, are informed by Erlang. Many of these new languages are choosing their "not exactly like Erlang" features in knowledge, not ignorance, as I think the Erlang community thinks.
Besides, Erlang builds in a lot of things that can be libraries in other languages. I built the replacement in Go. Mostly because it was hard to get people who wanted to work in Erlang but despite the rage on HN anytime Go comes up, getting people who are willing to work in Go was trivial even 5 years ago. (Hiring someone who knows Go already is still a bit of a challenge, but crosstraining someone into it is easy.) For the port, I wrote https://github.com/thejerf/reign . You will look at it and go "But Erlang has this and that and the other thing with its clustering, and your thing doesn't have those things!" And my response is twofold: First, that some of those things are supported in Go code in other ways than what you are expecting, and that was not intended to be "Erlang in Go" but "a library for helping port Erlang programs into Go without rearchitecting", and second... the resulting cluster has been more reliable and more performant (we actually cut the cluster from 4 to 2, because now even a single machine can handle the entire load), and all the "features" reign is missing, well, maybe they aren't so important out of the context of Erlang. I suppose in my own way this is another sort of story like Discord's; on the metrics I care about, my home-grown clustering library worked better for me than Erlang's clustering code.
(In fact, Go's even got the edge on Erlang for GC for my use case, which is one of the ways in which the new system is more performant. Now, it happens that my system is architected on sending around messages that may frequently be several megabytes in size, and Erlang was really designed for sending around lots of messages in the kilobyte range. Even as I was using it, Erlang got a lot better with handling that, but it still was never as good or fast as Go, and Go's only gotten better since then, too. I was able to do things in Go for performance to re-use my buffers that are impossible in Erlang.)
So, I mean, while I do deeply respect Erlang for its pioneering position, and I am particularly grateful for the many years I spent with it back when it was the only option of its sort (if I had to write the project in question in C++ or something, I just wouldn't have; do not think I "hate" Erlang or something, I am very grateful for it), if I am a bit less starry-eyed about it than some it's because I see it as... just code. It's just code. Erlang gets no special access to CPU instructions or special Erlang-only hardware that allows it to do things no other language can. It's just code. Code that can be and has been written in other languages, in other environments.
I like Erlang in a lot of ways, and respect its place in history. But it's community is insular, maybe even a bit sick, and I don't really expect that to change, because once an individual realizes it, they tend to just leave, leaving behind only the True Believers, who still believe that Erlang is the unique and special snowflake... that it was... 15 years ago.
That collaboration thing is why Actix exploded I think. While mostly an isolated incident it does show some clash between the author's values (and possibly the author's employer's (MSFT) values) and the values of the general Rust community. I would not say that reflects on the maturity of the langues or ecosystem.
In Go a lot of stuff is Google dictated. In Rust it's a true open governance innovation project (looking to become a non-profit). Since the Go is a very specific language --made for networked apps and only has one way to do concurrency-- and Rust very broad --a true general purpose prog lang-- it is easy to see how Go mature so quickly (not much to mature) and also why it got a bit old so quickly as well (ignores most innovations in computer science of the last decades).
Just because it is used most for "network apps" doesn't mean it's limited to that. On the other hand, you could argue that Rust is a wrong fit for anything _except_ performance-critical applications, because for anything else it's not worth to saddle yourself with the added complexity.
> and Rust very broad --a true general purpose prog lang-- it is easy to see how Go mature so quickly (not much to mature) and also why it got a bit old so quickly as well
This simplicity is the thing Go opponents like to point out (or mock) most, and what Go fans actually would tell you is one of the best features of the language. It's actually refreshing to have one language that doesn't try to be everyone's darling by implementing every conceivable feature - we already have enough of those, Rust, C++, Java etc. etc. But you don't have to take my word for it, you can also read the first sentences from this blog post: https://bradfitz.com/2020/01/30/joining-tailscale - he puts it better than I could...
Google explicitly shown no intent to make Go a fit beyond network apps. You can hack something into doing more than originally intended, but then you are usually operating "outside of warranty".
> On the other hand, you could argue that Rust is a wrong fit for anything _except_ performance-critical applications
Well, Rust does more than C-level high perf. It also allows for very safe/maintainable code that's high perf. Both of these are not something like a special feature, nope, ANY software needs to be high perf, bug free and maintainable to some degree. And as the size of the codebase grows, lack of these properties in a languages rears is ugly head.
The added complexity cost, as you mentioned, is IMHO not a real cost. It's more like an investment. You go with Rust, you have to pay up front: learning new concepts, slower dev't, more verbosity/syntax/gibberish-y code. But once the codebase grows, you(r team) have grown accustomed to this and you start to reap the benefits of Rust's safety, freedom to choose your concurrency patterns, maintainability and verbosity.
Now I do want to point out a REAL cost that was not mentioned yet, that Rust brings with it much more than Go: compile time. This sucks for Rust. Given the complexity of Rust, I dont expect it to ever come close to Go's lightning compiles. It will improve/ it constantly improving. And IDE features that prevent compiles (e.g.: error highlights) are maturing and will help too. But this is a big reason for picking Go.
Your Jedi mind trick about Go's "simplicity" does not work on me :) ... It's fast compiles (a result of simplicity) are the bonus. Not being able to use the language beyond network apps or go-routine-concurrency are simply a minus for every learner (not for Google as a creator), as you limit the use of your new skill. The reason they kept the 1B$ mistake (null) in there is simply unforgivable.
And if Go will never add features we have to see. Java also intended to stay lean, well...
Both have ups and downs. Rust definitely has immature web service ecosystem and it's a result of immature async i/o ecosystem. At the same time go has those things otb.
I guess I better experiment more with mnesia before really using it for anything serious. Or find alternatives. We had Redis before but that experience turned out just awful so we got rid of it.
As for the community, I think Elixir is where it's at nowadays. There is, unsurprisingly, a very strong focus on webby stuff with Elixir, and a lot of the things you would build with it are just easy. Like a multi-machine chat server.
If I started to build a new distributed chat server today, Elixir would still be the easiest way to go, despite eventually likely not being the most performant solution out there. Discord likewise seems happy with their choice for this particular use case, only supplementing it with the likes of Rust for specific problems in their domain.
I mean you yourself built a lot of the Erlang's/BEAM's logic from the scratch on Go just to be able to use it there. I'm expecting I'd end up in a similar alley with Rust/Haskell/take your pick if I was attacking the problems where Elixir has all the facilities already set up and battle tested.
For example Go is great for building cli apps. Simple, easy to install and easy to understand.
For another Go has surprisingly good windows support. Google didn’t do that.
For a third Go has robust cryptography libraries.
There are actually lot’s of other contributions from the community if you’d take the time to look.
Seriously? Does Google say that "native GUI devt" is intended use? And how about that it only supports one concurrency method, and does not allow one to implement one yourself.
> For example Go is great for building cli apps.
Ok, your joking right? CLI apps are simply a networked app that does not necessarily use the network. That's not an entirely new domain, like OpenGL, native GUIs, embedded systems, kernel programming, ...
> There are actually lot’s of other contributions from the community if you’d take the time to look.
That's good, but it still is not "open innovation" to the level of say Rust.
[0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/recycling-memory-buffers-in-go/
This blog post kinda internally matches our upgrade to std::futures and tokio 0.2, away from futures 0.1.
It would be interesting to see what a more modern Go would do given there have been a bunch of tail latency GC improvements since your older 1.9 Go version... and in an ideal world, it would be nice to file an issue on the tracker if you were still seeing this.
(Maybe that ends up later helping another one of your Go services, or maybe it just helps the community, or maybe it’s a topic for another interesting blog...).
In any event, thanks for taking the time to write up and share this one.
The timelines don’t appear to fit
By choosing rust you will suffer a great deal of the limitations of it's poor, not production ready, ecosystem. I'm not even talking about the immaturity of the async await support.
I imagine a bunch of front end servers managing open web sockets connections, and also proving filtering/routing of newly published messages. Alas, it’s probably best categorized as a multicast-to-server, multicast-to-user problem.
Anyways, if there’s an elegant solution to this problem, would love to learn more.
> Consistent hashing maps objects to the same cache machine, as far as possible. It means when a cache machine is added, it takes its share of objects from all the other cache machines and when it is removed, its objects are shared among the remaining machines.
I guess the challenge here is that subscriptions are sparse: I.e. one ws connection can carry multiple channel subscriptions, thus undermining the consistent hash.
This is more from niche to niche. Thought that was interesting, but yet the discussion here wasn't all that different to the usual. Guess it's flamewars always, regardless of popularity.
Their use case doesn't seem to have either consideration (note that even when these are considerations a hybrid of languages is often a good idea) so there isn't a compelling reason to choose C++. That doesn't mean C++ is wrong, just that there is nothing wrong with rust. Maybe a great C++ programmer can get a few tenths of a percent faster code (mostly because compiler writers spend more effort figuring out how to optimize C++ - rust uses the same llvm optimizer but it might sometimes do something less optimal because it assumed C++ input), but in general if the difference matters in your environment you are too close to the edge and need to scale.
Rust might be easier/faster to write than modern C++. If so that is a point in favor of rust. They seem to have people who know rust, which is important. There might be more people who know C++, but I can take any great programmer and make them good in any programming language in a few weeks in the worst case (worst case would be writing a large program in intercal or some such intentionally hard language) - not to be confused with expert which takes more experience.
Why would BTreeMap be faster than HashMap? HashMap performance is O(1), while BTreeMap performance is O(log N).
Which brings me to my second point: hashtable based data structures are not worst-case O(1). They are worst-case O(n), because in the worst case, you will either have to scan every entry in your table (open addressing) or walk a list of size n (separate chaining). Of course, good hashtable implementations will not allow a situation with so many collisions, but in order to avoid that, they will need to allocate a new table and copy over the contents of the old, which is also a O(n) operation.
Given two kinds of data structures, one which is average-case O(1), but worst-case O(n) versus best- and worst-case O(log n), which one you choose depends on what kinds of performance you're optimizing for, and how bad the constants are that we've been ignoring. If you care more about throughput, then you usually want average-case O(1), as the occasional latency spikes aren't important to you. But if you care more about latency, then you'll probably want to choose worst-case O(log n), assuming that its implementations constants aren't too bad.
2. Memory usage on a hash map would be worse especially if the fill ratio is relatively low.
(from 2015): "Go is building a garbage collector (GC) not only for 2015 but for 2025 and beyond: A GC that supports today’s software development and scales along with new software and hardware throughout the next decade. Such a future has no place for stop-the-world GC pauses, which have been an impediment to broader uses of safe and secure languages such as Go." [2]
In gaming industry there are similar problems with GC and they were solved with memory pools
They're probably right, because Google doesn't need it. But for everyone else who decided to use a language designed to solve Google's fairly-unique problems as if it were a general-purpose language: that kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Yeah please tell me again how GC is a superior solution to reference counting in cases when you know exactly when you don't need the object anymore.
(Hint: RC is not GC if the object is dealocating itself)
I've seen this used to consistently allocate customers to a particular set of servers, not just ensure you are hitting the right cache. It doesn't fully solve the subscription issue where multiple people are in multiple channels, but it could probably be used as a building block there.
It would still be interesting to see them post how go > 1.12 would do since it no longer has stop the world garbage collection.
We are willing to adopt early technologies we think are promising, and contribute to or fund projects to continue to advance the ecosystem. Yes, this means the path less traveled, but in the case of rust (and in the past Elixir, and even React Native) we think the trade offs are worth it.
Also the tokio team uses Discord for their chat stuff, so it's nice to pop in to be able to ask for and offer help.
Why do you think that? Seems like Rust is a great choice for this type of high performance work.
It is doubtful that this will improve, much, without breaking changes to the language. The range of code over which type inference operates, or at least programmers' reliance on it, would need to contract by quite a lot. There would be Complaints.
Besides, I am willing to bet idiomatic rust is 2x-10x faster than idiomatic kotlin.
But can I not have it?
The one that is 100% more mature than the Java async/await support?
The JVM world tends to solve this problem by using off-heap caches. See Apache Ignite [0] or Ehcache [1].
I can't speak for how their Rust cache manages memory, but the thing to be careful of in non-GC runtimes (especially non-copying GC) is memory fragmentation.
Its worth mentioning that the Dgraph folks wrote a better Go cache [2] once they hit the limits of the usual Go caches.
From a purely architectural perspective, I would try to put cacheable material in something like memcache or redis, or one of the many distributed caches out there. But it might not be an option.
It's worth mentioning that Apache Cassandra itself uses an off-heap cache.
[0]: https://ignite.apache.org/arch/durablememory.html [1]: https://www.ehcache.org/documentation/2.8/get-started/storag... [2]: https://blog.dgraph.io/post/introducing-ristretto-high-perf-...
"Remarkably, we had only put very basic thought into optimization as the Rust version was written. Even with just basic optimization, Rust was able to outperform the hyper hand-tuned Go version."
For those who care, I was interested how off-heap caching works in Java and I did some quick searching around the Apache Ignite code.
The meat is here:
- GridUnsafeMemory, an implementation of access to entries allocated off-heap. This appears to implement some common Ignite interface, and invokes calls to a “GridUnsafe” class https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/53e47e9191d717b3eec495...
- This class is the closest to the JVM’s native memory, and wraps sun.misc.Unsafe: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/53e47e9191d717b3eec495...
- And this, sun.misc.Unsafe, is what it’s all about: http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/sun/misc/Unsafe.html
It’s very interesting because I did my fair share of JNI work, and context switches between JVM and native code are typically fairly expensive. My guess is that this class was likely one of the reasons why Sun ended up implementing their (undocumented) JavaCritical* etc functions and the likes.
Unsafe was one of the cooler aspects to Java that Oracle is actively killing for, well, no good reason at least.
Aren't these Unsafe memory read and write methods intrinsified by any serious compiler? I don't believe they're using JNI or doing any kind of managed/native transition, except in the interpreter. They turn into the same memory read and write operations in the compiler's intermediate representation as Java field read and writes do.
Yeah, but I really do not bite your argument.
When you are reduced to do manual memory management and fight the GC of your language, maybe you should simply not use a language with GC in the first place.
They are right to use rust ( or C/C++) for that. It's not for nothing that redis (C) is so successful in the LRU domain.
> It's worth mentioning that Apache Cassandra itself uses an off-heap cache.
And still ScyllaDB (C++) is able to completely destroy Cassandra in term of AVG latency [0]
As far as I know, a mark-and-sweep collector like Go's doesn't have any advantage over malloc/free when it comes to memory fragmentation. Am I missing some way in which Go's GC helps with fragmentation?
I only glossed over the article but the problem they had with Go seems to be the GC incurred from having a large cache. Their cache eviction algorithm was efficient, but every 2 minutes there was a GC run which slowed things down. Re-implementing this algorithm in Rust gave them better performance because the memory was freed right after the cache eviction.
Splitting it across more processes will result in more cache misses and more DB calls.
Now I'm wondering if there's a Rust library for a generational copying arena--one that compacts strings/blobs over time.
You cannot use a caching server at that scale with those latency requirements. It has to be embedded
Can you speak to why using something like memcache or redis may not be an option?
https://go.scylladb.com/7-reasons-no-external-cache-database...
Looks like this issue was resolved for maps that don't contain pointers by [1]. From the article, sounds like the map keys were strings (which do contain pointers, so the map would need to be scanned by the GC).
If pointers in the map keys and values could be avoided, it would have (if my understanding is correct) removed the need for the GC to scan the map. You could do this for example by replacing string keys with fixed size byte arrays. Curious if you experimented this approach?
I also think it is great that Discord is using the right tool for the job. It isn't often that you need the performance gains that Rust & Tokio so pick what works best to get the job done and iterate.
> Rust is blazingly fast and memory-efficient: with no runtime or garbage collector, it can power performance-critical services, run on embedded devices, and easily integrate with other languages.
I’m not so sure they would have done the rewrite if the Go GC was performing better, and the choice of Rust seems primarily based on prior experience at the company writing performance sensitive code rather than delivering business value.
Collections are one of the big areas where Go's lack of generics really hurts it. In Go, if one of the built in collections does not meet your needs, you are going to take a safety and ergonomic hit going to a custom collection. In Rust, if one of the standard collections does not meet your needs, you (or someone else) can create a pretty much drop-in replacement that does that has similar ergonomic and safety profiles.
A corollary to this is that adding more generic collections to Go’s standard library implies expanding the set of magical constructs.
(anecdotal: in Java I've never needed anything else than a HashMap or an ArrayList)
The idea for this is (if I remember correctly) to be able to return unused memory to the OS. As returning memory requires a gc to run, it is forced in time intervals. I am a bit surprised that they didn't contact the corresponding Go developers, as they seem to be interested in practical use cases where the gc doesn't perform well. Besides that newer Go releases improved the gc performance, I am a bit surprised that they didn't just increase this time interval to an arbitrary large number and checked, if their issues went away.
To be fair, most languages without GCs also don't have good language constructs to support manual memory management. If you're going to make wide use of manual memory management, you should think very carefully about how the language and ecosystem you're using help or hinder your manual memory management.
> We figured we could tune the garbage collector to happen more often in order to prevent large spikes, so we implemented an endpoint on the service to change the garbage collector GC Percent on the fly. Unfortunately, no matter how we configured the GC percent nothing changed. How could that be? It turns out, it was because we were not allocating memory quickly enough for it to force garbage collection to happen more often.
As someone not too familiar with GC design, this seems like an absurd hack. That this 2-minute hardcoded limitation is not even configurable comes across as amateurish even. I have no experience with Go -- do people simply live with this and not talk about it?
Rust is faster than Go. People use Go, like any other technology, when the tradeoffs between developer iteration/throughput/latency/etc. make sense. When those cease to make sense, a hot path gets converted down to something more efficient. This is the natural way of things.
Also note this was with Go1.9. I know GC work was ongoing during that time, I wonder if this time of situation would still happen?
Go is what would have happened if Bell Labs wrote Java.
In that case, Go is Bell Labs' second attempt at Java.
(And Kernighan was their floor-mate too, that must have been a stunningly great environment)
And Unix is what happened when Bell Labs wrote an operating system -- something that was born outdated from the start.
Just like Golang.
We have 2 golang services left, one of them has a rewrite in rust in PR as of last week (as a fun side project an engineer wanted to try out.)
Additionally, as we move towards a more SOA internally, we plan to write more high velocity data services, and rust will be our language of choice for that.
Kinda like this: https://blog.sentry.io/2016/10/19/fixing-python-performance-... ?
This isn’t exactly “Linux kernel: now in Rust!”
Glad you’re making tech for you all better.
We get to take up the externalized runtime costs of the mess that is the Electron app.
Engineers are super efficient at offloading the last mile of effort.
They were able to rewrite their hot spot in a new language without having to rewrite all their business logic in a new language. Not that there wouldn’t have been solutions with a monolith, but this certainly seems elegant and precise.
It appears that Go has a lower CPU floor, but it's killed by the GC spikes, presumably due to the large cache mentioned by the author.
This is interesting to me. It suggests that Rust is better at scale than Go, and I would have thought with Go's mature concurrency model and implementation would have been optimized for such cases while Rust would shine in smaller services with CPU bound problems.
Great post!
https://github.com/golang/go/search?q=forcegcperiod&unscoped...
Go's GC seems kind of primitive.
For me the interesting part is that their new implementation in Rust with a new data structure is less than 2x faster than an implementation in Go using a 2+years old runtime.
It shows how fast Go is vs an very optimized language + new data structure with no GC.
Overall I'm pretty sure there was a way to make the spikes go away.
Still great post.
The Go's GC is groundbreaking in several aspects, but probably needs to provide ways to fine-tune it. Posts like this make me believe that one-size-fits-all settings are yet to be seen.
[0]: https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2019/04/10/go-memory-ballast-how-i...
EDIT: Currently at -4 downvotes. Would downvoters care to discuss their votes?
Can someone explain to me how BTreeMap is more memory efficient than a HashMap?
Note that this explanation is a bit handwavy, as both data structures have numerous optimizations in production scenarios.
Rust's HashMap stores the collisions in the same table as the non-collisions (open addressing), not in a separate collection.
I suppose that won't stop the GC from scanning the memory though ... so maybe they had something akin to that. I assume that a company associated with games and with some former games programmers would have thought to use pool allocators. Honestly, if that strategy didn't work then I would be a bit frustrated with Go.
I have to say, out of all of the non-stop spamming of Rust I see on this site - this is definitely the first time I've thought to myself that this is a very appropriate use of the language. This kind of simple yet high-throughput workhorse of a system is a great match for Rust.
Yes, reality is more complex since they probably have multi socket servers/NUMA, which might add memory access latencies and atomic updates to the LRU might require a locking scheme, which also isn't trivial (and where async Rust might be useful).
This doesn't only go for Go.
After spending weeks fighting with Java's GC tuning for a similar production service tail latency problem, I wouldn't want to be caught having to do that again.
Once I spend even the plurality of my time cleaning up messes instead of doing something new (and there are ways to do both), then all the life is sucked out of me and I just have to escape.
Telling me that I have to keep using a tool with known issues that we have to process or patches to fix would be super frustrating. And the more times we stumble over that problem the worse my confirmation bias will be.
Even if the new solution has a bunch of other problems, the set that is making someone unhappy is the one that will cause them to switch teams or quit. This is one area where management is in a tough spot with respect to rewrites.
Rewrites don't often fix many things, but if you suspect they're the only thing between you and massive employee turnover, you're between a rock and a hard place. The product is going to change dramatically, regardless of what decision you make.
Really all languages with tracing GC are at a disadvantage when you have a huge number of long-lived objects in the heap. The situation is improved with generational GC (which Go doesn't have) but the widespread use of off-heap data structures to solve the problem even in languages like Java with generational GC suggests this alone isn't a good enough solution.
In Go's defense, I don't know another GC'ed language in which this optimization is present in the native map data structure.
Go 1.9 is fairly old (1.14 is about to pop out), and there have been large improvements on tail latency for the Go GC over that period.
One of the Go 1. 12 improvements in particular seems to at least symptomatically line up with what they described, at least at the level of detail covered in the blog post:
https://golang.org/doc/go1.12#runtime
“Go 1.12 significantly improves the performance of sweeping when a large fraction of the heap remains live.“
The problem is that garbage collectors are optimized for applications that mostly have short-lived objects, and a small amount of long-lived objects.
Things like large in-RAM LRU are basically the slowest thing for a garbage collector to do, because the mark-and-sweep phase always has to go through the entire cache, and because you're constantly generating garbage that needs to be cleaned.
I think it's not quite that.
Applications typically have a much larger old generation than young generation, i.e. many more long lived objects than short lived objects. So GCs do get optimized to process large heaps of old objects quickly and efficiently, e.g. with concurrent mark/sweep.
However as an additional optimization, there is the observation that once an application has reached steady state, most newly allocated objects die young (think: the data associated with processing a single HTTP request or user interaction in a UI).
So as an additional optimization, GCs often split their heap into a young and an old generation, where garbage collecting the young generation earlier/more frequently overall reduces the mount of garbage collection done (and offsets the effort required to move objects around).
In the case of Go though, the programming language allows "internal pointers", i.e. pointers to members of objects. This makes it much harder (or much more costly) to implement a generational, moving garbage collector, so Go does not actually have a young/old generation split nor the additional optimization for young objects.
There would be no need for a GC to traverse the entire map, but that's because rust doesn't use a GC.
> The ballast in our application is a large allocation of memory that provides stability to the heap.
> As noted earlier, the GC will trigger every time the heap size doubles. The heap size is the total size of allocations on the heap. Therefore, if a ballast of 10 GiB is allocated, the next GC will only trigger when the heap size grows to 20 GiB. At that point, there will be roughly 10 GiB of ballast + 10 GiB of other allocations.
Also, it is almost trivial to edit the Go sources (they are included in the distribution) and rebuild it, which usually takes just a minute. So Go is really suited for your own experiments - especially, as Go is implemented in Go.
Well, parts of it. You can't implement "make" or "new" in Go yourself, for example.
Obviously they consider spending 50% more on hardware is a worthwhile compromise for the gains they get (e.g. reduction of developer hours and reduced risk of security flaws or avoiding other effects of invalid pointers).
Ruby 1.8.x wants to say "Hello"
> We kept digging and learned the spikes were huge not because of a massive amount of ready-to-free memory, but because the garbage collector needed to scan the entire LRU cache in order to determine if the memory was truly free from references.
So maybe this is one of those things that just doesn't come up in most cases? Maybe most services also generate enough garbage that that 2-minute maximum doesn't really come into play?
But (virtually) nobody is writing games in Go, so it's entirely possible that it's an unusual case in the Go ecosystem. Being an unsupported usecase is a great reason to switch language.
You could maybe hack around the GC performance without destroying the aims of LRU eviction by batching additions to your LRU data structure to reduce the number of pointers by a factor of N. It's also possible that a Go BTree indexed by timestamp, with embedded data, would provide acceptable LRU performance and would be much friendlier on the cache. But it might also not have acceptable performance. And Go's lack of generic datastructures makes this trickier to implement vs Rust's BtreeMap provided out of the box.
This is something important to know before choosing a GC-based language for a task like this. I don't think "generating more garbage" would help, the problem is the scan is slow.
If Discord was forced to do this in pure Go, there is a solution, which is basically to allocate a []byte or a set of []bytes, and then treat it as expanse of memory yourself, managing hashing, etc., basically, doing manual arena allocation yourself. GC would drop to basically zero in that case because the GC would only see the []byte slices, not all the contents as individual objects. You'll see this technique used in GC'd languages, including Java.
But it's tricky code. At that point you've shucked off all the conveniences and features of modern languages and in terms of memory safety within the context of the byte expanses, you're writing in assembler. (You can't escape those arrays, which is still nice, but hardly the only possible issue.)
Which is, of course, where Rust comes in. The tricky code you'd be writing in Go/Java/other GC'd language with tons of tricky bugs, you end up writing with compiler support and built-in static checking in Rust.
I would imagine the Discord team evaluated the option of just grabbing some byte arrays and going to town, but it's fairly scary code to write. There are just too many ways to even describe for such code to end up having a 0.00001% bug that will result in something like the entire data structure getting intermittently trashed every six days on average or something, virtually impossible to pick up in testing and possibly even escaping canary deploys.
Probably some other languages have libraries that could support this use case. I know Go doesn't ship with one and at first guess, I wouldn't expect to find one for Go, or one I would expect to stand up at this scale. Besides, honestly, at feature-set maturity limit for such a library, you just end up with "a non-GC'd inner platform" for your GC'd language, and may well be better off getting a real non-GC'd platform that isn't an inner platform [1]. I've learned to really hate inner platforms.
By contrast... I'd bet this is fairly "boring" Rust code, and way, way less scary to deploy.
It is worth it to read and understand: https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2019/04/10/go-memory-ballast-how-i...
If these issues were more common, there would be more configuration available.
[EDIT] to downvoters: I'm not saying it's not an issue worth addressing (and it may have already been since they were on 1.9), I was just answering the question of "why this might happen"
GOGC=off
More details here: https://golang.org/pkg/runtime/
I think with that, you could turn off GC after startup, then turn it back on at desired intervals (e.g. once an hour or after X cache misses).
It's definitely risky though. E.g. if there is a hiccup with the database backend, the client library might suddenly produce more garbage than normal, and all instances might OOM near the same time. When they all restart with cold caches, they might hammer the database again and cause the issue to repeat.
IIRC I have used GitLab and Bitbucket and self-hosted Gitea instances the same exact way, and I'm fairly sure there was an hg repo in one of those. Don't recall doing anything out of the ordinary compared to how I would use a github URL.
Sometimes it means an easy thing in most other languages is difficult or tiresome to do in Go. Sometimes it means hard-coded values/decisions you can't change (only tabs anyone?).
But overall this makes for a language that's very easy to learn, where code from project to project and team to team is very similar and quick to understand.
Like anything, it all depends on your needs. We've found it suits ours quite well, and migrating from a Ruby code base has been a breath of fresh air for the team. But we don't have the same performance requirements as Discord.
These are two things that make a lot of sense at Google if you read why they were done.
But unless you're working at Google, I struggle to guess why you would care about either of these things. The first requires sacrificing anything resembling a reasonable type system, and even with that sacrifice Go doesn't really deliver: are we really supposed to buy that "go generate" isn't a compilation step? The second is sort of nice, but not nice enough to be a factor in choosing a language.
The core language is currently small, but every language grows with time: even C with its slow-moving, change-averse standards body has grown over the years. Currently people are refreshed by the lack of horrible dependency trees in Go, but that's mostly because there aren't many libraries available for Go: that will also change with time (and you can just not import all of CPAN/PyPy/npm/etc. in any language, so Go isn't special anyway).
If you like Go for some aesthetic of "simplicity", then sure, I guess I can see how it has that. But if we're discussing pros and cons, aesthetics are pretty subjective and not really work talking about.
Well, sure, because categorizing languages as "valid/invalid" doesn't make any sense.
But it does show yet another example of how designing a language to solve Google's fairly-unique problems doesn't result in a general-purpose language suitable for solving most people's problems.
Go is actually great to solve most people's problem with web servers, while Rust is better for edge cases.
How much of Google's infrastructure actually runs on Go tho? :)
This shows only a single example where Go is not very suitable, but it doesn't prove a general case on its own.
> We tried upgrading a few times. 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10. None of it helped. We made this change in May 2019. Just getting around to the blog post now since we've been busy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/eyuebc/why_dis...
> Another Discord engineer chiming in here. I worked on trying to fix these spikes on the Go service for a couple weeks. We did indeed try moving up the latest Go at the time (1.10) but this had no effect.
> For a more detailed explanation, it helps to understand what is going on here. It is not the increased CPU utilization that causes the latency. Rather, it's because Go is pausing the entire world for the length of the latency spike. During this time, Go has completely suspended all goroutines which prevents them from doing any work, which appears as latency in requests.
> The specific cause of this seems to be because we used a large free-list like structure, a very long linked list. The head of the list is maintained as a variable, which means that Go's mark phase must start scanning from the head and then pointer chase its way through the list. For whatever reason, Go does (did?) this section in a single-threaded manner with a global lock held. As a result, everything must wait until this extremely long pointer chase occurs.
> It's possible that 1.12 does fix this, but we had tried upgrading a few times already on releases that promised GC fixes and never saw a fix to this issue. I feel the team made a pragmatic choice to divest from Go after giving the language a good attempt at salvaging the project.
EDIT: Actually, no it didn't, I misunderstood it.
It isn't surprising to me. It's stated elsewhere they tried 4 difference version of Go, up through 1.10 apparently, and had performance problems with all of them. At some point you can't suffer garbage collector nonsense anymore and since they'd already employed Rust on other services they tried it here.
It worked on the first try.
That's not surprising either.
What would be surprising is if any of these "but version such and such is Waaay better and they should just use that" actually panned out. The best case would be that the issue just manifests as some other garbage collector related performance problem. That's the deal you sign up for when you saddle yourself with a garbage collector.
- You'd have to ensure that your large data structure gets allocated entirely within the special region. That's simple enough if all you have is a big array, but it gets more complicated if you've got something like a map of strings. Each map cell and each string would need to get allocated in the special region, and all of the types involved would need new APIs to make that happen.
- You'd have to ensure that data structures in your special region never hold references to anything outside. Since the whole point of the region is that the GC doesn't scan it, nothing in the region will be able to keep anything outside the region alive. Any external references could easily become dangling pointers to freed memory, which is the sort of security vulnerability that GC itself was designed to prevent.
All of this is doable in theory, but it's sufficiently difficult, and it comes with sufficiently many downsides, that it makes more sense for a project with these performance needs to just use C or Rust or something.
You can treat external references as GC roots.
[1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/gctuning/garbage-first-garb...
That real business problem is Java generates boat load of garbage so GC needs a lot more performance tuning to make application run normal.
As you fight your language, you're GC avoidance system will become larger and larger. At some point you might re-evaluate your latency requirements, your architecture, and which are the right tools for the job.
Probably, yeah. But the Golang team would never add such a feature because of their philosophy of keeping the language simple.
But "it's for Google, and you aren't Google" isn't a novel perspective, doesn't leave me with new insights, and isn't really actionable for either Google or people who aren't Google.
Usually this criticism is leveled at Go's dependency management story, with the implication being that it's suited to Google's monorepo but not normal people's repo habits. It's not clear to me how the criticism relates to the issues discussed in the article, which seem to be more about the runtime and GC behavior.
Your comment also doesn't come off as amusing or otherwise entertaining, so it feels like you're just dunking on Go users without really aiming to make anyone's day better.
Disclaimer: I use Go at work and think it's incredibly frustrating at times.
No, I wouldn't say Go is specific to Google's problems, though I'm sure some of the engineers had them in mind. I see Go used far more outside of Google than in.
I don't know if that disproves that Go was intended to solve Google's problems, though. I think from the early writings of the authors of the language in its infancy, it was pretty clear that they intended it to solve problems they were having at Google (i.e. the single-pass compilation design was intended to help with the compilation of their gigantic codebase). If it hasn't gained traction at Google, that only proves that it failed to solve a lot of Google's problems.
That's still not to say it's a failure in an absolute sense: it may have solved the problems it was intended to solve.
I'll actually even say, that if you're Facebook or Netflix, you still shouldn't use Go, because you can write your own tools that solve your problems.
It was made by people who had been designing languages for about 40 years now. While some design choices seem weird, they usually have very strong argumentation and solid experience behind them.
Also if you read the list of problems tha Go is intended to solve, you will be surprised how common they are in software development.
What makes you think I haven't been following Go since its inception?
> Most of the concepts in the language were first implemented long before Google even existed, for systems that were very different from modern ones.
Yes, some of the languages which created those concepts are languages which I've used and which I feel did it better, which is why I am particularly frustrated that Go has gained such popularity with so little substance.
> It was made by people who had been designing languages for about 40 years now. While some design choices seem weird, they usually have very strong argumentation and solid experience behind them.
Yes. Most of the strong argumentation is Google specific.
> Also if you read the list of problems tha Go is intended to solve, you will be surprised how common they are in software development.
Such as?
The allocations were not the issue, the article notes that they did little to no allocations, hence the GC only running on forced triggers (every 2mn)
I realize you're not advocating pervasive use of the technique, but if someone reading this is going to make pervasive use of manually managed object pools in a GC'd language, they should at least consider the possibility of moving to a language with both good language support for manually managed memory and a good ecosystem of tooling around manual memory management.
Manually managed object pools in a language designed around GC don't fully get rid of the costs of GC, and re-expose the program to most of the errors (primarily use-after-free, double-free, and leaks related to poorly reasoned ownership) that motivated so much effort in developing garbage collectors in the first place.
[0] https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/talks/2017_Vectorizati...
I’m now guessing that this might actually have been those Unsafe classes as an intended use case. It makes total sense and I can see how that will be very fast.
However, bigger caches will always have more cache hits than smaller caches. Therefore could easily be 100x faster.
The blog does a better job explaining everything than I can but simply put the “granular” memory management Rust allows gave them an improved ability to create a bigger cache. Go (at the time) while great did not work well for that particular usecase and required smaller cache sizes.
Since you mention not knowing such languages, have a look at Eiffel, D, Modula-3, Active Oberon, Nim, C#/F# (specially after the latest improvements).
Also Java will eventually follow the same idea as Eiffel (where inline classes are similar to expanded classes in Eiffel), and ByteBuffers can be off-GC heap.
To be clear: I wasn't suggesting that generating garbage would help anyone. Only that in a more typical case, where more garbage is being generated, the two minute interval itself might never surface as the problem because other things are getting in front of it.
But, per other comments, there isn't any direct malloc/free behavior. It just provides tools to help you enable the compiler to determine that GC is not needed for some.
I'm other words, doing some of the work a moving compacting collector would do during compaction but continuously during normal program execution.
Possibly half and half, I don't remember what language it was (possibly obj-c?) which would hand out pointers, and on needing to move the allocations it'd transform the existing site into a "redirection table". Accessing pointers would check if they were being redirected, and update themselves to the new location if necessary.
edit: might have been the global refcount table? Not sure.
What I wanted to understand is what is the difference in fragmentation between a non-copying, non-compacting GC and a non-GC runtime.
I like Go and I consider it a simple language because:
1. I can keep most of the language in my head and I don't hit productivity pauses where I have to look something up.
2. There is usually only one way to do things and I don't have to spend time deciding on the right way.
For me, these qualities make programming very enjoyable.
You mean where I explicitly said that "simple" didn't mean anything, so we should talk about what we mean more concretely?
> 1. I can keep most of the language in my head and I don't hit productivity pauses where I have to look something up.
The core language is currently small, but every language grows with time: even C with its slow-moving, change-averse standards body has grown over the years.
> 2. There is usually only one way to do things and I don't have to spend time deciding on the right way.
Go supports functional programming and object-oriented programming, so pretty much anything you want to do has at least two ways to do it--it sounds like you just aren't familiar with the various ways.
The problem with having more than one way to do things isn't usually choosing which to use, by the way: the problem is when people use one of the many ways differently within the same codebase and it doesn't play nicely with the way things are done in the codebase.
This isn't really a criticism of Go, however: I can't think of a language that actually delivers on there being one right way to do things (most don't even make that promise--Python makes the promise but certainly doesn't deliver on it).
I've been happy working with it for a year now, though I've had the chance to work with Kotlin and I have to say, it's very nice too, even if the parallelism isn't quite easy/ convenient to use.
> During garbage collection, Go has to do a lot of work to determine what memory is free, which can slow the program down.
read like blogospam to me (which it is).
For comparison sake - similar post from Twitch has a lot more technical detail and generally makes me view their team in a lot better light than Dicord’s after reading both.
Short: ffi for erlang.
Your statement that Go is Google's language. In fact it's Rob Pike's and his team's language.
> Such as?
build speed, cross-platform builds, performance, simplicity of deployment, uniformity of large codebases and documentation, concurrency, learning speed
For instance fast access to un-GCd off heap memory is being added at the moment via the MemoryLayout class. Once that's here apps that upgrade won't need to use Unsafe anymore. MemoryLayout gives equivalent performance but with bounds checked accesses, so you can't accidentally corrupt the heap and crash the JVM.
They've been at it for a long time now. For instance VarHandle exposes various low level tools like different kinds of memory barriers that are needed to implement low level concurrency constructs. They're working on replacements for some of the anonymous class stuff too.
I mean, there's the obvious reason that it breaks the memory safety aspect that Java in general guarantees. The whole point of the feature is to subvert the language & expectations.
I'm not saying they should remove it, but it's pretty hard to argue there's "no good reason" to kill it, either. It is, after all, taking the worst parts of C and ramming it into a language that is otherwise immune from that entire class of problems.
Project Panama is what is driving that effort.
I'm guessing at least some of that was a side effect of wanting to support C++; not having pointers as an option would have killed C++/CLI from the get go.
At least with code hacking around the GC's behavior that code ends up being portable across the ecosystem.
There doesn't seem to really be a good option here either way. This amount of tuning-by-brute-force (either by knobs or by code re-writes) seems to just be the cost of using a GC.
The allocation is going to be close to the last allocation, which was touched recently, no? The first allocation after a compaction wii be far from recent allocations, but close to the compacted objects?
An extreme case of that problem happens when using GC in an app that gets swapped out. Performance drops to virtually zero then.
Sure, but that's not what I said.
Any program of sufficient complexity will run into at least one critical problem that isn't a "most people's problem". A well-written general-purpose language implementation will have been written in such a way that that problem isn't totally intractable.
> Go is actually great to solve most people's problem with web servers, while Rust is better for edge cases.
Most people's problem with web servers is writing a CRUD app, which is going to be easiest in something like Python/Django/PostGres/Apache. It's not the new shiny, but it includes all the usual wheels so you don't have to reinvent them in the name of "simple". Similar toolsets exist for Ruby/Java/.NET. Give it a few years and similar toolsets will be invented for Go, I'm sure.
Go 1.0 is nearly 8 years old at this point, and these toolsets have existed for years.
It says things like:
“We were not creating a lot of garbage.”
... but that statement there doesn’t say anything about the heap size, including the size and count of live objects (i.e., not garbage).
It also says:
“There are millions of Users in each cache. There are tens of millions of Read States in each cache.”
Large is often in the eye of the beholder, but I missed it if it said anything specifically about not having a large heap size.
Not sure why you got downvoted, you're actually right, I'm wrong: I misread that and/or assumed one meant the other.
That said, this is a case that should be ideal for generational GC, which Go specifically eschewed at one point. I'm not sure this is still the case, however--I have yet to wade through this[1] to update my knowledge here.
The guts of BTreeMap's memory management code is here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/liballoc/c.... (warning: it is some of the most gnarly rust code I've ever come across, very dense, complex, and heavy on raw pointers. this is not a criticism at all, just in terms of readability). Anecdotally I've had very good results using BTreeMap in my own projects.
In terms of how the "global" allocator impacts performance, I'd expect it to play a bigger role in terms of Strings (I mean, it's a chat program), and possibly in terms of how the async code "desugars" in storing futures and callbacks on the heap (just guessing, I'm not an expert on the rust async internals).
One of these days I’ll get around to turning my Rust set implementation[0] into a full-blown map (it’s already <50% the size of BTreeSet for ints)...
1. map/filter are 2 lines of code each. 2. Inheritance is part of mainstream OOP, but there are some less common languages that don't support inheritance in the way you're probably thinking (i.e. older versions of JavaScript before they caved and introduced two forms of inheritance). 3. Generics are more of a strong type thing than an OOP thing.
It is rather that due to a lack of genericity (namely const generics) you can't implement traits for [T;N], you have to implement them for each size individually. So there has to be an upper bound somehow[1], and the stdlib developers arbitrarily picked 32 for stdlib traits on arrays.
A not entirely dissimilar limit tends to be placed on tuples, and implementing traits / typeclasses / interfaces on them. Again the stdlib has picked an arbitrary limit, here 12[2], the same issue can be seen in e.g. Haskell (where Show is "only" instanced on tuples up to size 15).
These are not "weird hacks", they're logical consequences of memory and file size not being infinite, so if you can't express something fully generically… you have to stop at one point.
[0] here's 47 https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
[1] even if you use macros to codegen your impl block
Just pool could've mitigated your problem at least partially, is what I'm saying.
Which brings you back to doing an expensive scan of the large off-heap data structure you were trying to avoid.
We use C++ at Scylla (saw that we got a shout-out in the blog! Woot!) but it's not like there isn't a whole industry about writing blogs avoiding C++ pitfalls.
C++ pitfalls through the years... • https://www.horstmann.com/cpp/pitfalls.html (1997) • https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30373/what-c-pitfalls-sh... (2008) • http://blog.davidecoppola.com/2013/09/cpp-pitfalls/ (2013) • https://www.typemock.com/pitfalls-c/ (2018)
I am not saying any of these (Go, Rust, C++, or even Java) are "right" or "wrong" per se, because that determination is situational. Are you trying to optimize for performance, for code safety, for taking advantage of specific OS hooks, or oppositely, to be generically deployable across OSes, or for ease of development? For the devs at Scylla, the core DB code is C++. Some of our drivers and utilities are Golang (like our shard aware driver). There's also a Cassandra Rust driver — it'd be sweet if someone wants to make it shard-aware for Scylla!
Actually we didn't update the reference to Cassandra in the article -- the read states workload is now on Scylla too, as of last week. ;)
We'll be writing up a blog post on our migration with Scylla at some point in the next few months, but we've been super happy with it. I replaced our TokuMX cluster with it and it's faster, more reliable, _and_ cheaper (including the support contract). Pretty great for us.
> For those interested, there is a proposal to add a target heap size flag to the GC which will hopefully make its way into the Go runtime soon.
What's wrong with the existing parameter?
I'm sure they aren't going this far to avoid all environment config without a good reason, but any good reason would be a flaw in some part of their stack.
CloudFront, for this reason, allocates heterogeneous fleets in its PoPs which have diff RAM sizes and CPUs [0], and even different software versions [1].
> When they all restart with cold caches, they might hammer the database again and cause the issue to repeat.
Reminds me of the DynamoDB outage of 2015 that essentially took out us-east-1 [2]. Also, ELB had a similar outage due to unending backlog of work [3].
Someone must write a book on design patterns for distributed system outages or something?
[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=pq6_Bd24Jsw&t=50m40s
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=n8qQGLJeUYAt=39m0s
This is definitely a familiar problem if you rely on caches for throughput (I think caches are most often introduced for latency, but eventually the service is rescaled to traffic and unintentionally needs the cache for throughput). You can e.g. pre-warm caches before accepting requests or load-shed. Load-shedding is really good and more general than pre-warming, so it's probably a great idea to deploy throughout the service anyway. You can also load-shed on the client, so servers don't even have to accept, shed, then close a bunch of connections.
The more general pattern to load-shedding is to make sure you handle a subset of the requests well instead of degrading all requests equally. E.g. processing incoming requests FIFO means that as queue sizes grow, all requests become slower. Using LIFO will allow some requests to be just as fast and the rest will timeout.
I've read the first SRE book but having worked on large-scale systems it is impossible to relate to the book or internalise the advice/process outlined in it unless you've been burned by scale.
I must note that there are two Google SRE books in-circulation, now: https://landing.google.com/sre/books/
Ouch, Go never ceases to amaze. The Bitbucket case[0] is even more crazy, calling out to the Bitbucket API to figure out which VCS to use. It has a special case for private repositories, but seems to hard-code cloning over HTTPS.
If only we had some kind of universal way to identify resources, that told you how to access it...
[0]: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/e6ebbe0d20fe877b111cf4ccf8...
Wow, that's sad. I'm glad it works seamlessly, don't get me wrong, but I was assuming I could chalk it up to defacto standards between the various vendors here.
I have no idea if this actually a good idea, seems like you get rid of a lot of the cache locality advantages.
Rust is better suited to deal with it since there's a similar issue with refcounting across threads, so you might be able to get away with doing it for objects that are exclusive to one thread.
Of course there are no generics yet so doing things like re-using a custom hash table implementation will be less convenient.
Would that actually work in this instance? It seems like that LRU cache they're talking about is kind of large.
I can't say for sure without knowing what the contents of that heap is, but I suspect that yes, it would work.
However, the reason the heaps are so small is that they're each a lightweight thread, and in Erlang, spinning up new threads is a way of life. It would be hard to overstate what a fundamentally different architecture this is.
This is arguable, but the fact is that "large collections/caches" isn't Discord's situation.
Anyway, in this case, I guess they're using a free list because (1) it's simpler since you don't need an external collection keeping a list of unused stuff, and (2) reason (a) above.
If you do a lot of allocations, the GC overhead rises of course, but also would the effort of doing allocations/deallocations with a manual managing scheme. In the end it is a bit trade-off, what fits the problem at hand best. The nice thing about Rust is, that "manual" memory management doesn't come at the price of program correctness.
As a consequence, the heap pressure of a Go program is not necessarily significantly larger than that of an equivalent C or Rust program.
They could have tried 1 other version (not 4) and picked either the latest (1.13) or the version that contains the GC improvements (1.12) to test. Usually when you are looking to upgrade something you skim the release notes so testing 1.12 or 1.13 is obvious especially when 1.12 seems to specifically address their performance concern.
If upgrading something avoids a service re-write that is usually the way to go unless you were looking for an excuse to re-write the service in the first place which may have been the case.
edit:
It turns out they did exactly what my comment stated: they tested the latest version (1.10). It's just that this article was published recently but the events happened quite a while back.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe 1.14 has a performance regression with their specific load and they get screwed.
We'll never know. You know why? They permanently solved their GC problems by eliminating GC.
That's the smart play.
Compared to if I wrote something in house entirely in C... lolno
The main issue however is manpower. At my current client, one of the technologies still actively being used for this reason is PHP (which is a horrible fit for microservices for a lot of reasons), because they have a ton of PHP devs employed, and finding a ton of (good) people with something more fitting like Go or Rust knowledge is hard and risky and training costs a lot of money (and more importantly: time)...
Of course it has some advantages, but it's hardly universally better.
Often something like Redis is used as a shared cache that is invisible to the garbage collector, there is a natural key with a weak reference (by name) into a KV store. One could embed a KV store into an application that the GC can't scan into.
Doesn't Go have something like this available? It's an obvious thing for garbage-collected languages to have.
I do, I'm just objecting to "Go is implemented in Go".
The stable compiler is permitted to use unstable features in stable builds, but only for compiling the compiler. In essence, there are some Rust features that are supported by the compiler but only permitted to be used by the compiler. Unsurprisingly, various non-compiler users of Rust have decided that they want those features and begun setting the RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP envvar to build things other than the compiler, prompting consternation from the compiler team.
[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/6627 [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/7088
https://golang.org/src/runtime/map.go
https://golang.org/src/runtime/slice.go
I don't see why you couldn't do something similar in your own Go code. It just won't be as convenient to use as the compiler wouldn't fill in the type information (element size, suitable hash function, etc.) for you. You'd have to pass that yourself or provide type-specific wrappers invoking the unsafe base implementation. More or less like you would do in C, with some extra care to abide by the rules required for unsafe Go code.
So you could argue that they are still going to suffer some of the downsides of a GC'ed memory allocation. Some potential issues include non-deterministic object lifespan, and ensuring that any unsafe code they write which interacts with the cache does the "right thing" with the reference counts (potentially including de-allocation; I'm not sure what unsafe code needs to do when referencing reference counted boxes).
That's so misleading as to essentially be a lie.
Rust uses reference counting if and only if you opt into it via reference-counted pointers. Using Rc or Arc is not the normal or default course of action, and I'm not aware of any situation where it is ubiquitous.
> So you could argue [nonsense]
No, you really could not.
If there’s a better way to handle a global LRU cache, I’m all ears.
Rust will probably be faster because it benefits from optimizations in LLVM that Go likely doesn't have.
Go arrays of structs are contiguous, not indirect pointers.
In contrary, in e.g. C I can wrap two 32-bit fields in a struct and freely pass then anywhere with zero heap allocations.
Also, record types are not going to fix the pointer chasing problem with arrays. This is promised by Valhalla, but I'be been hearing about it for 3 years or more now.
Java is very fast and 3X slower is a pretty wild claim.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
On the real world, you won't get things as optimized in higher level languages, because optimized code looks completely unidiomatic. A 3x speedup from Java is a pretty normal claim.
Most code will be considerably slower due to a lot of factors.
Java in particular is a very pointer-heavy language, made up of pointers to pointers to pointers everywhere, which is really bad for our modern systems that often are much more memory latency than CPU constrained.
A factor of 2-4x to languages like C++ or Rust for most code seems plausible (and even low) unless the limiting factor is external, like network or file system IO.
It's true that pointer chasing really hurts in some sorts of program and benchmark. For sure. No argument. That's why Project Valhalla exists.
But it's also my view that modern C++ programming gets away with a lot of slow behaviours that people don't really investigate or talk about because they're smeared over the program and thus don't show up in profilers, whereas actually the JVM fixes them everywhere.
C++ programs tend to rely much more heavily on copying large structures around than pointer-heavy programs. This isn't always or even mostly because "value types are fast". It's usually because C++ doesn't have good memory management so resource management and memory layout gets conflated, e.g. std::vector<BigObject>. You can't measure this because the overheads are spread out over the entire program and inlined everywhere, so don't really show up in profiling. For the same reasons C++ programs rely heavily on over-specialised generics where the specialisation isn't actually a perf win but rather a side effect of the desire for automatic resource management, which leads to notorious problems with code bloat and (especially) compile time bloat.
Another source of normally obscured C++ performance issues is the heap. We know malloc is very slow because people so frequently roll their own allocators that the STL supports this behaviour out of the box. But malloc/new is also completely endemic all over C++ codebases. Custom allocators are rare and restricted to very hot paths in very well optimised programs. On the JVM allocation is always so fast it's nearly free, and if you're not actually saturating every core on the machine 100% of the time, allocation effectively is free because all the work is pushed to the spare cores doing GC.
Yet another source of problems is cases where the C++ programmer doesn't or can't actually ensure all data is laid out in memory together because the needed layouts are dynamically changing. In this case a moving GC like in the JVM can yield big cache hit rate wins because the GC will move objects that refer to each other together, even if they were allocated far apart in time. This effect is measurable in modern JVMs where the GC can be disabled:
https://shipilev.net/jvm/anatomy-quarks/11-moving-gc-localit...
And finally some styles of C++ program involve a lot of virtual methods that aren't always used, because e.g. there is a base class that has multiple implementations but in any given run of the program only one base class is used (unit tests vs prod, selected by command line flag etc). JVM can devirtualise these calls and make them free, but C++ compilers usually don't.
On the other hand all these things can be obscured by the fact that C++ these days tends only to be used in codebases where performance is considered important, so C++ devs write performance tuned code by default (or what they think is tuned at least). Whereas higher level languages get used for every kind of program, including the common kind where performance isn't that big of a deal.
Here are some benchmarks; I'll leave to the experts out there to confirm or dismiss them.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
If anything the gap is increasing not shrinking. JVM is terrible at memory access patterns due to the design of the language, and designing for memory is increasingly critical for maximum performance on modern systems. All the clever JIT'ing in the world can't save you from the constant pointer chasing, poor cache locality, and poor prefetching.
The gap won't shrink until Java has value types. Which is on the roadmap, yes, but still doesn't exist just yet.
The problem with those benchmarks is if you look at the Java code you'll see it's highly non-idiomatic. Almost no classes or allocations. They almost all exclusively use primitives and raw arrays. Even then it still doesn't match the performance on average of the C (or similar) versions, but if you add the real-world structure you'd find in any substantial project that performance drops off.
Tight, low level code in Java and Go is roughly as fast as average C code. The Go compiler is know to be less good at optimizing code than e.g. GCC, but this in many cases creates little practical difference, while the Java JIT compilers have become excellent to a point where they often beat GCC, especially as they can use run time profiling for code optimization. So they can optimize the code for the actual task at hand.
Where the languages differ in "speed" is their runtime environment. Java and Go are languages with garbage collection, which of course means that some amount of CPU is required to perform GC. But as the modern garbage collectors run in parallel with the program, this CPU effort often enough is no bottleneck. On the other side, manual memory management has different performance trade-offs, which in many cases can make it quite slow on its own.
But now I sound like a Geico (insurance) commercial. Sorry about that.
> Telling me that I have to keep using a tool with known issues that we have to process or patches to fix would be super frustrating.
All tools have known issues. It's just that some have way more issues than others. And some may hurt more than others.
Go has reached an interesting compromise. It has some elegant constructs and interesting design choices (like static compilation which also happens to be fast). The language is simple, so much so that you can learn the basics and start writing useful stuff in a weekend. But it is even more limiting than Java. A Lisp, this thing is not. You can't get very creative – which is an outstanding property for 'enterprises'. Boring, verbose code that makes you want to pull your teeth out is the name of the game.
And I'm saying this as someone who dragged a team kicking and screaming from Python to Go. That's on them – no-one has written a single line of unit tests in years, so now they at least get a whiny compiler which will do basic sanity checks before things blow up in prod. Things still 'panic', but less frequently.
"Referring to the term of "janitors" as demeaning is pretty demeaning and says more about you than your judgement of the parent."
I don't like this rhetoric device you just used.
Also, I think that janitors do important work as well.
The demeaning of janitors was introduced by GP by describing it as something they would rather not do.
No mental gymnastics required.
I started up KSP just now, and it was at 5.57GB before I even got to the main menu. To be fair, I hadn't launched it recently, so it was installing its updates or whatever. Ok, I launched it again, and at the main menu it's sitting on 5.46GB. (This is on a Mac.) At Mission Control, I'm not even playing the game yet, and the process is using 6.3GB.
I think a better takeaway is that you can get away with GC even in games now, because it sucks and is inefficient but it's ... good enough. We're all conditioned to put up with inefficient software everywhere, so it doesn't even hurt that much anymore when it totally sucks.
Is this true? Go was built specifically for C++ developers, which, even when Go was first release, was a pretty unpopular language for writing web services (though maybe not at Google?). That a non-trivial number of Ruby/Python/Node developers switched was unexpected. (1)
https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...
IDK if this is true for earlier versions, but as of today C# has pretty clear rules: 16MB in desktop or 64MB in server (which type is used can be set via config) will trigger a full GC [1]. Note that less than that may trigger a lower level GC, but those are usually not the ones that are noticed. I'm guessing at least some of that is because of memory locality as well as the small sizes.
On the other hand, in a lot of the Unity related C# posts I see on forums/etc, passing structs around is considered the 'performant' way to do things to minimize GC pressure.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/garbage-col... [2] https://blog.golang.org/ismmkeynote
[1] https://blogs.unity3d.com/2018/11/26/feature-preview-increme...
It seems like my comment was just an entry point for you to shit on gc which, ironically, I mostly agree with in this context.
And that's also how management usually sees it, and if they're smart they also realise that the first project using an unfamiliar technology is usually one to throw away.
This Apple marketing meme needs to die. Reference counting incurs arguably more cost than GC, or at least the cost is spread through-out processing.
[1]: <https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9670-safe_and_secure_drivers_in_...
I agree with you that most people tend to associate GC with something more advanced nowadays, like mark and sweep as you said in another comment, but it seems pointless to argue that ARC is not a form of GC.
Refcounting in the presence of threads is usually non-deterministic too.
Most people think of Python as GCed language, and it uses mostly RC.
Any runtime that uses mark & sweep today may elect to use RC for some subset of the heap at some point in a future design, if that makes more sense. The mix of marking GC vs refcounting GC shouldn't affect the semantics of the program.
If one goes with reference counting as GC implementation, then one should take the effort to use hazardous pointers and related optimizations.
Note: that parenthetical is a very big caveat, because properly profile-optimized JVM executables can often achieve exceptional performance/development cost tradeoffs.
In addition however, ARC admits a substantial amount of memory-usage optimization given bytecode, which is now what developers provide to Apple on iOS. Not to mention potential optimizations by allowing Apple to serve last-minute compiled microarchitecture optimized binaries for each device (family).
To satiate the pedants... ARC is more of less GC where calls into the GC mechanism are compiled in statically and where there are at worst deterministic bounds on potential "stop the world" conditions.
While this may not be presently optimal because profile-guided approaches can deliver better performance by tuning allocation pool and collection time parameters, it's arguably a more consistent and statically analyzable approach that with improvement in compilers may yield better overall performance. It also provides tight bounds on "stop the world" situations, which also exist far less frequently on mobile platforms than in long running sever applications.
Beyond those theoretical bounds, it's certainly much easier to handle when you have an OS that is loading and unloading applications according to some policy. This is extremely relevant as most sensible apps are not actually long running.
I doubt that. It implies huge costs without giving any benefits of GC.
A typical GC have compaction, nearly stack-like fast allocation [1], ability to allocate a bunch of objects at once (just bump the heap pointer once for a whole bunch).
And both Perl and Swift do indeed perform abysmally, usually worse than both GC and manual languages [2].
> ARC is more of less GC
Well, no. A typical contemporary GC is generational, often concurrent, allowing fast allocation. ARC is just a primitive allocator with ref/deref attached.
[1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.49....
> Our target community was ourselves, of course, and the broader systems-programming community inside Google. (1)
Without global knowledge of memory lifetimes, maintainers make local decisions to copy rather than share.
Allocation in a C++ program is going to be about the same speed as in a Java program. Modern mallocs are doing basically the same thing on the hot-path: bumping the index on a local slab allocator.
Have you ever worked in a code base with many contributors that changed over the course of years? In my experience it always ends up a jumble where indentation is screwed up and no particular tab setting makes things right. I've worked on files where different lines in the same file might assume tab spacing of 2, 3, 4, or 8.
For example, say there is a function with a lot of parameters, so the argument list gets split across lines. The first line has, say, two tabs before the start of the function call. The continuation line ideally should be two tabs then a bunch of spaces to make the arguments line up with the arguments from the first line. But in practice people end up putting three or four tabs to make the 2nd line line up with the arguments of the first line. It looks great with whatever tab setting the person used at that moment, but then change tab spacing and it no longer is aligned.
some_function(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
arg5, arg6);
Consider linting tools in your build.
The Azul guys get to claim that you don't need to tune their gc, golang doesn't.
Thing is, few if any IDEs support the concept, so if I want to have half-indents, I must use spaces. Unfortunately, these days that means giving up and using a more common indent style most of the time, as the extra bit of readability generally isn't worth losing automatic formatting or multi-line indent changes.
BTW when you mix spaces with tabs you eliminate all benefits that tabs give (for example you no longer can dynamically change tab size without ruining formatting.
No, I used to be a notepad user (on personal projects, not shared work) (you can kinda see it in the use of indentation to help convey information that IDEs would use font or colour to emphasize), and these days use tabs but longingly wish Eclipse, etc. had more options in their already-massive formatting configuration dialogues.
This is made possible by rust's memory model, where it understands ownership of data, and the lifetime of each reference that's being taken from that owned data. This means that the compiler can statically determine how long an object needs to live, and that references to the object don't outlive the owned data. For use-cases where the lifetime of references are able to be statically understood, an arc/rc is not required. This blog-post goes into it in much better detail than I can: https://words.steveklabnik.com/borrow-checking-escape-analys...
Locking on one thread at a time seems like a pretty obvious performance flaw. It just doesn't seem like an appropriate design for the given workload (lots of requests, lots of stored items, largely write-only (except for its position in the queue)). It would make a lot more sense to grant multiple threads access the LRU at any given time.
And early optimization and all that aside, creating the LRU in such a way that it can be easily restricted to one thread or opened up makes the most sense to me. Otherwise, you get to re-write the LRU (and all the code which accesses it) if it should be identified as a bottleneck.
Of course, I'm not responsible for the code or truly involved in the design process, so my perspective may be limited.
You can scale-out by running multiple instances of the service (shared-nothing, N many depending on how cores you want to run on.) Or, you can do message-passing between cores.
In this case, we have 2 modes of scale-up/out (add more nodes to the cluster, or add more shared-nothing LRU caches that are partitioned internally that the process runs, allowing for more concurrency).
We however only run one LRU per node, as it turns out that the expensive part is not the bottleneck here, nor will it probably ever be.
<tab>(inserts 4 spaces)<tab>(replaces 4 spaces into a tab that is 8 columns)<tab>(adds 4 spaces after the tab)<tab>(replaces with two tabs and so on)
Unless I misunderstood what formatting you were using.
See:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19094704/indentation-in-...
Not sure how that makes the golang position any better.
> The common factor in most of my decisions to look for a new job has been realizing that I feel like a very highly compensated janitor instead of a developer.
So for that person, feeling like a janitor is incentive for seeking a new job. It's that simple really.
/s
Plenty of `inner static classes`. Where's the up-to-date comparison showing that `static` makes a performance difference for those tiny programs?
Plenty of TreeNode allocations.
----
> The problem with …
The problem with saying "in any substantial project that performance drops off" is when we don't show any evidence.
I don't know what you mean by "copy-only types." I'm not finding any reference to that terminology in the context of language design.
Sorry about the confusion. I meant for the quotes around "copy-only" to indicate that it wasn't really a standard term, but I marked "value types" the same way, so that didn't really work. By "copy-only" I meant something you couldn't have more than one reference to: every name (variable) to which you assign the data would have its own independent copy.
And the "hardness" of writing lockless structures is strongly offset by libraries, so unless you're doing something very exotic, it is rarely a real problem.
some_function(
arg1,
arg2,
arg3,
arg4,
arg5,
arg6,
);
rustfmt looks to try and be "smarter" as it will move the argslist and add linebreaks to it go not go beyond whatever limit is configured on the playground, gofmt apparently doesn't insert breaks in arglists.
Instead, format arguments in a separate block:
some_function(
arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
arg5, arg6);
My own preference is tabs, because of less visual noise in code diff [review].
Rust have by far the better ecosystem compared to those 3
It's Haskell-like features only help on large and complex programs.
— Maintenance Complexity "keep in mind that this is a subjective metric based on the author's experience!"
Help make one:
— contribute programs that you consider to be "idiomatic"
https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...
— use those measurement and web scripts to publish your own "common use cases" "idiomatic code" benchmarks game
----
>> compare language speed for common use cases vs trying to squeeze every last piece of performance
— please be clear about why you wish to compare the speed of programs written as if speed did not matter
----
??? What do you think is not "idiomatic" about programs such as:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Would it be fair to accept an optimization on a language and refuse it on another because it is not idiomatic ?
There are only a few applications for which it isn’t acceptable.
Just look at all the massive apps built on Electron. People wouldn’t do that if it wasn’t effective.
I used to think that but now I’m not so sure. :(
— memory usage is less different for tiny programs that do allocate memory: reverse-complement, k-nucleotide, binary-trees, mandelbrot, regex-redux
I mean, those 1GB RAM 7 years old slow as molasses phones getting dust into drawers or being littered into landfills would scream if they didn't have to run everything behind a VM.
Google's spyware is becoming more invasive and thus more memory-hungry.
1: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/usage/Us...
2: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/service/auto...
What? This doesn't make any sense. From the cache's POV stack and bump-allocated heap are the same thing. Both are continuous chunks of memory where the next value is being allocated right after the previous one.
The only difference between the stack and the bump-allocated heap is that the former has hardware support for pointer bumping and the latter has not. That's all.
The stack pointer moves both directions and the total range of that back-and-forth movement is typically in kilobytes, so it may fit fully in L1.
Just check with perf what happens when you iterate over an array of 100 MB several times and compare that to iterating over 10 kB several times. Both are contiguous but the performance difference is pretty dramatic.
Besides that, there is also an effect that the faster you allocate, the faster you run out of new gen space, and the faster you trigger minor collections. These are not free. The faster you do minor collections, the more likely it is for the objects to survive. And the cost is proportional to survival rate. That's why many Java apps tend to use pretty big new generation size, hoping that before collection happens, most of young objects die.
This is not just theory - I saw this just too many times, when reducing allocation rate to nearly zero caused significant speedups - by order of magnitude of more. Reducing memory traffic is also essential to get good multicore scaling. It doesn't matter each core has a separate tlab, when their total allocation rate is so high that they are saturating LLC - main memory link. It is easy to miss this problem by classic method profiling, because a program with such problem will manifest by just everything being magically slow, but no obvious bottleneck.
That's not really a requirement of value types, no. C# has value types (structs) and you can have references to them as well (ref & out params).
In general though yes it would be typically copied around, same as an 'int' is. Particularly if Java doesn't add something equivalent to ref/out params.
My refute it simply: Rusts web development story isn’t out of the box clean like Crystal Lang’s which ships with an HTML language out of the box. So it could be categorized as a poor choice in comparison to Crystal
Did you mean HTTP server? If so, there are at least 3 good ones in Rust that are only a `cargo add` away. If you've already taken the trouble to set up a toolchain for a new language, surely a single line isn't asking too much.
Yes, you are right about stack locality. It indeed moves back and forward making effective used memory region quite small.
> These are not free. The faster you do minor collections, the more likely it is for the objects to survive. And the cost is proportional to survival rate.
Yes, that's true. Immutable languages are doing way better here having small minor heaps (OCaml has 2MB on amd64) and very small survival rates (with many object being directly allocated on older heap if they are known to be lasting in advance).
Now I understand your point better and I agree.
Ofc, Apple is not MS, so Swift developer experience and docs kind of suck (if you're not in the "iOS bubble" where it's nice and friendly), and multiplatform dev experience especially sucks even worse...
And "easier to pick up and code in" might not necessarily be an advantage for a systems language - better start slowly putting the puzzle together in your head, and start banging up code others need to see only after you've internalized the language and its advanced features and when (not) to use them! It helps everyone in the long run. This is one reason why I'd bet on Rust!
Well, for fairness, D is quite a bit older than Swift. (It's nearly as much older than Swift as it is younger than C++!) But what do you think pushes Swift out of the "C++ with hindsight" basket?
Right now, I think eBay is one of the big companies that uses D.
Edit: Sibling comment beat me to it.
So I doubt they would sponsor D.
I don't think MS has any interest in improving C++ (look at their compiler). But that's not because of competing activities.
Visual C++ is the best commercial implementation of C++ compilers, better not be caught using xlc, aCC, TI, IAR, icc and plenty of other commercial offerings.
If C++ has span, span_view, modules, co-routines, core guidelines, lifetime profile static analyser, is it in large part to work started and heavily contributed by Microsoft on ISO, and their collaboration with Google.
As for competing with C++, it is quite clear, specially when comparing the actual software development landscape with the 90's, that C++ has lost the app development war.
Nowadays across all major consumer OSes it has been relegated to the drivers and low level OS services layer like visual compositor, graphics engine, GPGPU binding libraries.
Ironically, from those mainstream OSes, Microsoft is the only one that still cares to provide two UI frameworks directly callable from C++.
Which most Windows devs end up ignoring in favour of the .NET bindings, as Kenny Kerr mentions in one of his talks/blog posts.
Back to the D issue, Azure IoT makes use of C# and Rust, and there is Verona at MSR as well, so as much I would like to see them spend some effort on D, I don't see it happening.