5 ms·

JSON Parsing: Intel Sapphire Rapids versus AMD Zen 4

41 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
As always, love these random rundowns. The matrix of JSON library × task is neat to see, feels much more comprehensive than just running a couple straight head to heads! I do wish there was a newer compiler in use. GCC 11 was from March 2021. Using a nearly 3 year old compiler feels like it's leaving hard work & tuning on the table, isnt indicative of what these professors might be capable of.
unglaublich 3y ago
Woa, didn't know my favorite C++ json library is _that_ slow!
- sneed_chucker 3y ago
  But as ergonomic as it is to use, compared to doing most things in C++, I think I can forgive its slowness.
olliej 3y ago
It's interesting to see the performance numbers for JSON parsing in the context of parsing performance specifically. I guess this is largely a domain specific detail, as my experience was in the context of JS engines. For JSC at least the costs of allocating and constructing the JS object graph rapidly dwarf the cost of the parsing itself for any non-trivial JSON structure (though parsing JSON is still sufficiently fast relative to actual JS that there's still a significant win for all JS execution in JSC to start with an attempt to parse the input as a slightly extended JSON syntax, due to the wonders of JSONP and people still using eval for json parsing).
SushiHippie 3y ago
> You can reproduce my results by grabbing simdjson and running bench_ondemand. Can someone ELI5 how I can run these benchmarks? I cloned the repository, and tried to compile the bench_ondemand file, but it complains about missing header files, which are in the repository, but under the include/ directory. And I couldn't find any documentation about this EDIT: okay found some instructions for an old version, but these still work. if someone is interested: https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold/a192889420a87740daf3c7c0b79acca59ee43675 https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold/a192889420a87740daf3c7c...
- SushiHippie 3y ago
  For anyone interested, these are the results on a MacBook Pro with a M2 Pro: https://ibb.co/6tW8cRy https://ibb.co/6tW8cRy simdjson was not as performant as the author's intel or AMD results, but yyjson gave way better results than the author had.
hankman86 3y ago
Makes me wonder whether we will eventually see dedicated hardware acceleration for common server tasks such as JSON parsing.
- sam_bristow 3y ago
  Newer ARM chips already have opcodes to speed up Javascript's handing of numbers. https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/h/A64-Floating-point-Instructions/FJCVTZS https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/h/A64-Floati...
sliken 3y ago
Not sure what's going on, but my Ubuntu 23.10 system with a Ryzen 7900 (non-x) with 12 cores is 3.1x faster than the AMD EPYC 9R14 with 64 cores and 2.6x faster than the Intel Xeon 8488C with 48 cores. I just did the usual git clone, mkdir build, and: cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DSIMDJSON_JUST_LIBRARY=OFF To get the benchmark results: ~/git/simdjson/build/benchmark$ cat log | grep partial_tweets | grep "simdjson_ondemand" partial_tweets<simdjson_ondemand>/manual_time 66705 ns 75966 ns 10453 best_bytes_per_sec=9.59662G best_docs_per_sec=15.1962k best_items_per_sec=1.51962M bytes=631.515k bytes_per_second=8.81706G/s docs_per_sec=14.9913k/s items=100 items_per_second=1.49913M/s [BEST: throughput= 9.60 GB/s doc_throughput= 15196 docs/s items= 100 avg_time= 66705 ns]
- sirn 3y ago
  Core count shouldn't matter given the benchmark is single threaded (mentioned in the article). My guess is that CPU frequency plays a huge role in the throughput. Here's the same benchmark on a baremetal Xeon w9-3495X (Sapphire Rapids Workstation). As seen in the log (best_frequency) this is running at ~4.4 GHz during the benchmark: partial_tweets<simdjson_ondemand>/manual_time 107280 ns 132468 ns 6469 best_branch_miss=376 best_bytes_per_sec=8.10705G best_cache_miss=1 best_cache_ref=553 best_cycles=342.737k best_cycles_per_byte=0.542722 best_docs_per_sec=12.8375k best_frequency=4.39987G best_instructions=1.42334M best_instructions_per_byte=2.25385 best_instructions_per_cycle=4.15285 best_items_per_sec=1.28375M branch_miss=378.313 bytes=631.515k bytes_per_second=5.48235G/s cache_miss=0.655434 cache_ref=609.834 cycles=352.768k cycles_per_byte=0.558605 docs_per_sec=9.32143k/s frequency=3.2883G/s instructions=1.42334M instructions_per_byte=2.25385 instructions_per_cycle=4.03477 items=100 items_per_second=932.143k/s [BEST: throughput= 8.11 GB/s doc_throughput= 12837 docs/s instructions= 1423337 cycles= 342737 branch_miss= 376 cache_miss= 1 cache_ref= 553 items= 100 avg_time= 107279 ns] Given in the article Xeon 8488C at 3.4GHz got 6.83 GB/s, and my 3495X at 4.4 GHz got 8.11 GB/s (1.29 times CPU freq, 1.18 times throughput), it does look like the throughput scales to the CPU frequency (although not entirely linear)

41 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

As always, love these random rundowns. The matrix of JSON library × task is neat to see, feels much more comprehensive than just running a couple straight head to heads! I do wish there was a newer compiler in use. GCC 11 was from March 2021. Using a nearly 3 year old compiler feels like it's leaving hard work & tuning on the table, isnt indicative of what these professors might be capable of.

unglaublich 3y ago

Woa, didn't know my favorite C++ json library is _that_ slow!

sneed_chucker 3y ago
But as ergonomic as it is to use, compared to doing most things in C++, I think I can forgive its slowness.

olliej 3y ago

It's interesting to see the performance numbers for JSON parsing in the context of parsing performance specifically. I guess this is largely a domain specific detail, as my experience was in the context of JS engines. For JSC at least the costs of allocating and constructing the JS object graph rapidly dwarf the cost of the parsing itself for any non-trivial JSON structure (though parsing JSON is still sufficiently fast relative to actual JS that there's still a significant win for all JS execution in JSC to start with an attempt to parse the input as a slightly extended JSON syntax, due to the wonders of JSONP and people still using eval for json parsing).

SushiHippie 3y ago

> You can reproduce my results by grabbing simdjson and running bench_ondemand. Can someone ELI5 how I can run these benchmarks? I cloned the repository, and tried to compile the bench_ondemand file, but it complains about missing header files, which are in the repository, but under the include/ directory. And I couldn't find any documentation about this EDIT: okay found some instructions for an old version, but these still work. if someone is interested: https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold/a192889420a87740daf3c7c0b79acca59ee43675 https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold/a192889420a87740daf3c7c...

SushiHippie 3y ago
For anyone interested, these are the results on a MacBook Pro with a M2 Pro: https://ibb.co/6tW8cRy https://ibb.co/6tW8cRy simdjson was not as performant as the author's intel or AMD results, but yyjson gave way better results than the author had.

hankman86 3y ago

Makes me wonder whether we will eventually see dedicated hardware acceleration for common server tasks such as JSON parsing.

sam_bristow 3y ago
Newer ARM chips already have opcodes to speed up Javascript's handing of numbers. https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/h/A64-Floating-point-Instructions/FJCVTZS https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/h/A64-Floati...

sliken 3y ago

Not sure what's going on, but my Ubuntu 23.10 system with a Ryzen 7900 (non-x) with 12 cores is 3.1x faster than the AMD EPYC 9R14 with 64 cores and 2.6x faster than the Intel Xeon 8488C with 48 cores. I just did the usual git clone, mkdir build, and: cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DSIMDJSON_JUST_LIBRARY=OFF To get the benchmark results: ~/git/simdjson/build/benchmark$ cat log | grep partial_tweets | grep "simdjson_ondemand" partial_tweets<simdjson_ondemand>/manual_time 66705 ns 75966 ns 10453 best_bytes_per_sec=9.59662G best_docs_per_sec=15.1962k best_items_per_sec=1.51962M bytes=631.515k bytes_per_second=8.81706G/s docs_per_sec=14.9913k/s items=100 items_per_second=1.49913M/s [BEST: throughput= 9.60 GB/s doc_throughput= 15196 docs/s items= 100 avg_time= 66705 ns]

sirn 3y ago
Core count shouldn't matter given the benchmark is single threaded (mentioned in the article). My guess is that CPU frequency plays a huge role in the throughput. Here's the same benchmark on a baremetal Xeon w9-3495X (Sapphire Rapids Workstation). As seen in the log (best_frequency) this is running at ~4.4 GHz during the benchmark: partial_tweets<simdjson_ondemand>/manual_time 107280 ns 132468 ns 6469 best_branch_miss=376 best_bytes_per_sec=8.10705G best_cache_miss=1 best_cache_ref=553 best_cycles=342.737k best_cycles_per_byte=0.542722 best_docs_per_sec=12.8375k best_frequency=4.39987G best_instructions=1.42334M best_instructions_per_byte=2.25385 best_instructions_per_cycle=4.15285 best_items_per_sec=1.28375M branch_miss=378.313 bytes=631.515k bytes_per_second=5.48235G/s cache_miss=0.655434 cache_ref=609.834 cycles=352.768k cycles_per_byte=0.558605 docs_per_sec=9.32143k/s frequency=3.2883G/s instructions=1.42334M instructions_per_byte=2.25385 instructions_per_cycle=4.03477 items=100 items_per_second=932.143k/s [BEST: throughput= 8.11 GB/s doc_throughput= 12837 docs/s instructions= 1423337 cycles= 342737 branch_miss= 376 cache_miss= 1 cache_ref= 553 items= 100 avg_time= 107279 ns] Given in the article Xeon 8488C at 3.4GHz got 6.83 GB/s, and my 3495X at 4.4 GHz got 8.11 GB/s (1.29 times CPU freq, 1.18 times throughput), it does look like the throughput scales to the CPU frequency (although not entirely linear)