Why low-latency Java still requires discipline?(chronicle.software) |
Why low-latency Java still requires discipline?(chronicle.software) |
I managed to improve some applications of ours from several garbage collections per second to several minutes between collections. That _really_ improves p99.
$ java -XX:StartFlightRecording:maxsize=10M,filename=dump.jfr -jar app.jar
$ jfr view all-views dump.jfr > report.txt
$ jfr print dump.jfr > all.txt
If you want to collect these, telegraf has a jolokia plugin. It's an incredible combination!
https://blog.vanillajava.blog/2026/06/testing-java-memory-ma...
https://blog.vanillajava.blog/2026/06/why-you-should-tun-cod...
Suggestions welcome, it can be hard to know what to include or not.
Average go, rust, c++ and c will outperform amazing java programs, and the former will also be way way more easy to run, troubleshoot, interpret logs from.
Java is usch garbage in every stack.
C and C++ are dangerous languages filled with security failings and footguns, and no modern app should be written in them.
It's been my experience that well-written low-level Java code runs at about 75% the speed of good C code. (Of course lazy coders write in cushy Java which is much slower). When written efficiently, Java's biggest slowdown lies in array access (C and C++ array access is fast because it is very, very unsafe). But Java makes up for this in having a GC which will coalesce related objects into the same page and so take advantage of cache coherency effects in ways malloc and free cannot possibly do. I have some allocation-heavy algorithms in Java which are, as a result, significantly faster than well-written equivalents in C.
I've done a lot of performance engineering in both C++ and Java. Every optimization available in Java also exists in C++ but the reverse is not true, which is why C++ is always faster. Every example I have ever seen of Java being faster than C++ was just poorly optimized code. The heuristic I use is that heavily optimized C++ is about twice as fast as heavily optimized Java at the limit. And this requires some non-idiomatic and ugly Java that isn't nice to maintain.
This doesn't necessarily make Java the wrong choice though. Few organizations prioritize absolute performance above all other things. There are practical tradeoffs.
This is an article about low latency, not about Java in general. Would you even want a UI for this...
C++ or go? Then you'll have to take a very closer look, because the java JIT is wonderful. A masterpiece of several hands, actually.
Of course we are talking generals here. Sometimes the above is acceptable and Java/JIT is just fine. Sometimes it is unacceptable and you cannot use Java/JIT. Know your domain.
Of course in all cases (C, Rust, C++), you have to understand the system and what it is doing. Every language has a standard library that will do things that are not low latency on you. You have to know which library functions will do what, memory allocation and copies are both things that code often does without thought that are incompatible with low latency. No matter what you need to know what your language does that is against you.
Not true. Many benchmarks have shown otherwise. it is at least competitive in many areas.
> and the former will also be way way more easy to run, troubleshoot, interpret logs from
No language will save you from poor logging practices. If you log every debug log it's not Java's problem. No 1 says you have to log the full stack trace if that's your concern. You can configure / strip / do anything. Learn to use the stack.
There's startup "AOT cache" via Leyden that speeds up startup. Isn't native speed up it's quite a big boost.
Then there's GraalVM that does give you a native image. Real AOT.