Comment by erikvanoosten

Comment by erikvanoosten a day ago

3 replies

With Aaron I would think the focus should be on 'efficiƫnt', not reliable. Within a datacenter they are orders of magnitude faster than plan UDP. You get this crazy efficiency at the cost of reduced flexibility in how you send messages.

jzwinck a day ago

I haven't seen the makers of Aeron (or anyone else) claim it's "orders of magnitude faster than plain UDP." Do you have a link to something about this? It doesn't pass the smell test for me unless you're talking specifically about using Aeron within a single machine (where it uses shared memory instead of the network)...but you said "Within a datacenter" not "Within a computer."

  • erikvanoosten a day ago

    It has been a while since I saw their presentation. What I remember is that Aaron has an insanely low delay even in the high percentiles, that is orders of magnitude better. Throughput for a large stream of data is probably similar to plain UDP. Please correct me if I remember wrong.

    • buybackoff a day ago

      It does have great tail latency. But it's not a silver bullet, but careful engineering. And you pay for the latency with spinning threads. It's the architecture that makes it to stand out. In the end, it's just the same old UDP sockets, not even io_uring at least in the free public version. But one can use LD_PRELOAD if hardware has this trick - but again, it's not specific to Aeron.