Eric DayThoughts, code, and other oddments. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yet Another Language ComparisonSeptember 22, 2010Over the past year or so I've found myself evaluating my overall programming experience with the languages I'm working with. I might just be getting impatient in my old age (turning the big three-oh in a couple months), but I like to think I'm trying to find the most efficient way to solve the problem at hand. This has led me to learn and experiment with a number of languages, taking a look at each one's strengths and weaknesses. I realize programming language selection is very subjective and folks can get quite passionate in the debate, but I'm still going to present my personal opinions on the matter. Flame away. The main question that I'm trying to try to answer is: What language will enable me to solve the problem at hand correctly and in the fastest way possible? By correctly I mean without bugs or missing requirements. By fastest I not only mean the initial design and coding phases, but also maintenance. I'm a strong believer that no piece of software is ever complete and is usually read many more times than it is written. An application needs to be written in a way that is easy to jump back into it after some period of time. I've considered a number of metrics while experimenting with each language to answer the above question and I'm going to touch on a few big ones before digging into various scenarios and languages. I should also prefix this with the assumption that I'm talking about community-driven open-source software. This can of course apply to any team, open or closed, but I don't really care about those one-off programs that never leave your hard-drive. Here is a list of things to consider while evaluating your choices:
My Current PreferencesBelow is a list of a few classes of applications and my current preference for each. You'll notice a lack of Java in the discussion, mainly because I've always been on the C++ side for object-oriented applications. I'd rather put the time into a C++/STL/boost application and eliminate the extra VM layer at runtime. C/C++ also has the benefit of being able to link with other C/C++ libraries natively, where in Java you would need to write a JNI wrapper, find the Java equivalent, or write your own native library.
And the winner is...There is of course no single winner, choose the best tool for the job. I think the combination of C, Python, and Erlang are a good fit for a wide variety of applications. The mental shift to a functional language may take a bit in the case of Erlang, but I encourage you to give it a try if you have not already. The main downside of Erlang is its popularity (or lack thereof). It's not too far down the list, but certainly not in the top ten. This is probably due to it being a functional language and not having a history of general purpose applications. The popularity of projects such as CouchDB and RabbitMQ are putting Erlang on the map and giving developers a reason to take a closer look. If you still need to squeeze every bit of CPU and memory out of your applications, you'll probably need to stick with C or C++. Comment via Twitter or E-Mail Scale Stack vs node.js vs Twisted vs EventletJuly 28, 2010We've been discussing switching from Tornado to either Twisted or Eventlet for Nova (the compute project for OpenStack), so I decided to setup a test to see if there are performance differences to take into consideration. While I was at it I decided to include node.js since that's all the rage these days, as well as Scale Stack, a C++ project I started earlier this year. The TestI wanted to check for two main factors: handling of large numbers of concurrent connections and the overhead with transferring large amounts of data. To do this I wrote a simple echo server in each framework and then used the Scale Stack echo flood tool to test each one. The tool allows you to specify the number of concurrent connections and how much data to send and verify in 32k chunks. You can find the echo server and flood tool for Scale Stack in the project source code. For each of the others, here is the echo server source: node.js var net = require('net'); net.createServer(function (socket) { socket.on("data", function (data) { socket.write(data); }); socket.on("end", function () { socket.end(); }); }, {backlog: 32768}).listen(12345, "localhost");Twisted from twisted.internet.protocol import Protocol, Factory from twisted.internet import epollreactor epollreactor.install() from twisted.internet import reactor class Echo(Protocol): def dataReceived(self, data): self.transport.write(data) factory = Factory() factory.protocol = Echo reactor.listenTCP(12345, factory, backlog=32768) reactor.run()Eventlet import eventlet def handle(fd): while True: c = fd.recv(16384) if not c: break fd.sendall(c) server = eventlet.listen(('0.0.0.0', 12345), backlog=32768) pool = eventlet.GreenPool(size=32768) count = 0 while True: new_sock, address = server.accept() pool.spawn_n(handle, new_sock) SetupSince none of the frameworks run multi-core for this test (although Scale Stack could), I decided to use my laptop which is a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of memory running Ubuntu 10.4. There will be one core for the server, and one for the client. Doing the test on a single machine also lets us cut network bottlenecks out of the picture since it all runs through the local interface. In order to test at the high connection counts, I needed to tweak some system limits. I allow for 64k file descriptors per process in /etc/security/limits: root soft nofile 65535 root hard nofile 65535 * soft nofile 65535 * hard nofile 65535You'll notice really high listen backlog settings for the echo server code above. The kernel limits need to match this as well so we need to set these new limits in /proc. I also increased the ephemeral port range so we can get up to 32k active client connections and reduced the kernel socket buffer sizes so I don't out of memory. These can be set with: echo 32768 > /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_max_backlog echo 32768 > /proc/sys/net/core/somaxconn echo "21000 61000" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range echo 8192 > /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default echo 8192 > /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_defaultWith the system limits set, I started running the flood tool with connection counts from 1 through 32k. For each connection count, I ran the test with the connection echoing 32k of data and 512k of data. I ran each test three times for each server and took the lowest time (times were very consistent across the board, so any sample would have done). Results![]() Graph of the result listed below.
After the above tests, I also started each server up one at a time and ran a 32k connection client that sent data indefinitely to saturate the process. Here are the vmstat numbers of my system during these tests:
In all cases the server process was consuming an entire core. The idle times were on the core running the client tool, since the server could not always keep up with the client load. The last column labeled "Client Delay" was another time test I ran while the server was saturated to measure response time. For this test, a client would connect, send 32k of data, wait for the echo response, and then disconnect. Results are in seconds for this test. ConclusionsI was very impressed with how node.js and the Python frameworks held up. I've been writing event-driven servers in C/C++ for the past decade or so and didn't think the higher level languages could handle this kind of load as well as they did. My only concern with node.js or Python is not being able to use all the cores on your system. Some services are well suited to run multiple server process on a single machine or to farm work out to worker process pools to utilize all your cores, so this will be less of an issue. Other services are best implemented when all connections are in a single process and use thread pools instead. For that you'll still need to rely on a C or C++ based server (Scale Stack is meant to be a framework like the others to help in these cases). Servers written in Erlang or Java would probably perform decently across multiple cores as well. For short lived connections transferring less than 32k of data, all frameworks scaled very well. When a larger amount of data was being sent we started to see some differentiation. This could be due to buffering techniques or simply the overhead of calling into the language handlers more often. The increase in user % in the processor utilization from the vmstat output for node.js and Python supports this. Scale Stack only buffers once on read and has less runtime overhead since it is not running in an interpretor. The node.js and Python servers may be able to be optimized to avoid double buffering if that is indeed happening, please let me know if that is the case. As far as the original question of Twisted vs Eventlet, I don't think performance will be much of a deciding factor. Eventlet has a slight boost in performance and claims to be easier to write services in, but other folks still swear by Twisted. It is probably safe to say that available framework features and personal preference will be the deciding factors. Update - August 6, 2010I decided to run a few more versions for just the 32k connection, 512k data test. Below are the repeated times for the original four, plus Erlang, regular Python threads, and two versions of Go.
The Go version is very impressive, almost as fast as the C++ version. Of course these last four you get SMP without any extra work, which is a bonus. It turns out the default socket buffer sizes in Erlang are only 1500 bytes (MTU size). So be sure to push these up (in this test I set it to 16k). Memory consumption with the Erlang server was also fairly low (peak around 400M, usually around 150M). Comment via Twitter or E-Mail Threads with EventsApril 20, 2010Last week I was surprised to see this paper bubble back up on Planet MySQL. It describes the pros and cons of thread and event based programming for high concurrency applications (like a web server), arguing that thread-based programming is superior if you use an appropriate lightweight threading implementation. I don't entirely disagree with this, but the problem is such a library does not exist that is standard, portable, and useful for all types of applications. We have POSIX threads in the portable Linux/Unix/BSD world, so we need to work with this. Other experimental libraries based on lightweight threads or "fibers" are really interesting as they can maintain your stack without all the normal overhead, but it is hard to get the scheduling correct for all application types. I would even argue that thread and event based programming is actually not all that different, it's just a matter of how state is maintained (stack vs state variables) and how scheduling is performed. The comparisons done in that paper also put a C-based web server using a co-routine threading library against a Java based server that depends on the poll() system call. I'm sorry, but this is comparing apples to oranges. First, you're in the Java VM with a number of runtime components (like garbage collection) which may be getting in the way. Also, the standard poll() system call is not an efficient event-handling mechanism, it's much better to use epoll or some other Kernel-based handling mechanism. One high-concurrency userland threading implementation I do like is in Erlang. Erlang processes are extremely lightweight and I've written apps that depend heavily on them. One interesting application I saw was caching objects where each object got it's own Erlang process. This put a whole new spin on cache management, and it looked like it could actually scale reasonably well. The "problem" with Erlang, which may or may not be a problem depending on your requirements, is that it is still a bit of overhead running byte-code in a VM, as well as it being a functional language. I love functional programming, but I've found it still ties most developer's heads in knots if they don't have a reason to use it regularly. For open source projects trying to build a contributor community, it can act as one more hurdle. So, what is the "best" paradigm?Back in 2000 some colleagues and I wrote a hybrid thread-event library that would create one event-handler instance per thread, and connections would be spread across the pool of event-handling threads. I believe this gave the best of both worlds, and I saw high throughputs with fairly minimal overhead. I wrote a number of servers based on this architecture, including HTTP, IMAP, POP3, and DNS, and with each server type this model proved to be efficient and scalable. Ultimately the best architecture depends on your application. If you never intend to have many connections, and your applications has long-running computations, one-thread-per-connection would probably be best. If you need to handle large numbers of connections and have short, non-blocking request processing, event-based scales extremely well. You can of course create a hybrid of these two and have all connections managed by event threads and asynchronous queues to dedicated processing threads for heavy request handling (this is sort of what I did in the C Gearman Job Server). There is no single correct answer, so take a look at your options before deciding how to approach your own applications. Don't be afraid to create hybrids as well. Regardless of which paradigm you choose, concurrent programming can be hard, especially at the lower levels. There have been a number of higher level abstractions to help developers, from new libraries to new languages, but most of these come with a cost in performance or flexibility. When you need to squeeze every bit of performance out of your application, you will most likely end up in C or C++ dealing with these issues directly. This is actually one of the problems I'm attempting to address with the Scale Stack Event modules. I'm trying to create a healthy level of abstraction on hybrid thread/event based applications so you don't have any overhead or limitations while a lot of the common headaches are taken care of for you. If you have a need for such a system, get in touch, I'd be interested to talk. Since it is BSD licensed you can use it in any application, including commercial. Comment via Twitter or E-Mail View all thoughts. |
Thoughts Code About RSS Scale Stack NW Veg Veg Food & Fit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2011 Eric Day - eday@oddments.org
All content licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||