[This message was posted by Majkara Majka of me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/50b31ec3 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
You need me to be specific after all those answers below point to the same conclusion? Okay, fine, provide a reference implementation that decodes sad 150,000 messages on a 3GHz core. Tangible one if possible. For the record, that is a pathetic rate by any standards of late 1990s, and two orders of magnitude improvement is perfectly normal in this day and age. Once again, bits are the wrong abstraction in all hardware architectures for the last 10 years. Moreover, equivalent bandwidth saving is achievable with less complexity and latency, try it out yourself (it is not my job to educate). FAST design is going against that, period. Point two, talk to the exchanges or vendors who hack according to target specifics rather than FAST protocol definition. Taking the figures and the facts above, please do not be silent on the issue. Speaking up is the only way to move forward, so: Why is this the case? And, why complicate with workaround on top of workaround? [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
