4 ms·
Author states "Using the Disruptor (a lock-free ring buffer on the JVM), you can easily process 20M+ events per second. On .NET using ordained "best practices"
by camkego 11y ago
Author states "Using the Disruptor (a lock-free ring buffer on the JVM), you can easily process 20M+ events per second. On .NET using ordained "best practices" anything more than a dozen transactions per second is considered decent-to-good performance and at that point, you just need bigger/better/more hardware."
WTF? This is inane.
- cachemiss 11y agoYeah, he's comparing one of the best optimized ring buffers on the JVM to actual transactions, that's one of the worst comparisons I've ever seen. I've shipped large scale systems on .NET and on the JVM, the issues you run into with .NET are that windows isn't as easy to administer IMO as linux variants, and your ecosystem isn't as strong, that's about it. .NET doesn't have a runtime profiler that will deoptimize / recompile etc., which can cause slowdowns in certain use cases, it does have a better unsafe story, and value types, and reified generics which can make things faster for you.
- jonathanoliver 11y agoOP here. I still really like the Disruptor style. You're right, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
- UK-AL 11y agoThe comparison is silly. Disrupter is a completely different way of working compared to the standard java way. If you use standard Java style and compare that .net style then it would be the same.
- droz 11y agoIt's also incredible hyperbole. Makes it difficult to take anything else the author wrote seriously.