2 ms·
TBH, physics limits how latency-sensitive weapons systems need to be and you can largely just disable the GC in these contexts. They use CPUs from the 1990s to
by jandrewrogers 3mo ago
TBH, physics limits how latency-sensitive weapons systems need to be and you can largely just disable the GC in these contexts. They use CPUs from the 1990s to do hypersonic terminal guidance. You don’t have to do any performance engineering for many latency-sensitive weapon systems. Could probably write it in Javascript.
For throughput-optimized systems, some of which are real-time, you never see a GC. That loss in performance is simply too large such that the computation becomes intractable. A lot of really poor systems admittedly exist but no one considers them “good”.
- pjmlp 3mo agoThroughput-optimized systems like HFT? https://www.lmax.com/exchange/technology https://www.lmax.com/exchange/technology No, you could not guide battleship weapons in Javascriptt https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-system.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-s... https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2402709.2402699 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2402709.2402699 And no they don't disable the GC, they have real time GC implementations, https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/perc https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/perc
- jandrewrogers 3mo agoI think you may be confused about what "throughput-optimized" means. HFT is not throughput-optimized by definition. The LMAX link literally says it is a latency-optimized system. An optimal throughput-optimized system has unbounded worst-case latency -- the opposite of "latency-optimized". None of those links contradict anything I wrote, I am already familiar with all of them.