Btw, if anyone is running comparison tests. I used a 3.4 ghz iMac with i7 (4 
cores, 8 threads). The tests were all on the local machine (no physical 
networking involved).

With both Go and Java, the CPU appears to be saturated - which is expected.

> On Oct 29, 2018, at 3:53 PM, robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Gophers,
> 
> I’ve been chastised in the past regarding some of my Go performance tests - 
> using Java as a baseline. In most of these micro-benchmarks Go has performed 
> more poorly than expected.
> 
> So, I ported nats (https://nats.io <https://nats.io/>) message broker (which 
> is written in Go) to Java. It is available at github.com/robaho/jnatsd 
> <http://github.com/robaho/jnatsd>
> 
> This was an ideal test case, as only the server broker was ported, and all of 
> the client tools and benchmarks could be run unmodified.
> 
> So, using the Java based broker (under OpenJDK11 with Shenandoah) and the 
> nats bench with defaults:
> 
> without SSL, 3200k msgs per second
> with SSL, 900k msgs per second
> 
> using the Go based server (under Go 1.11) and the same test parameters:
> 
> without SSL, 5400k msgs per second
> with SSL, 2600k msgs per second
> 
> The latency numbers are much closer, but notice the much higher max in Java 
> (attributed to larger GC pauses). It is expected that in the above throughput 
> tests, more GC cycles, thus a much larger penalty.
> 
> Java: 
>   latency avg 191214 min 167079 max 936848 ns
> Go:
>   latency avg 188338 min 158997 max 588876 ns
> 
> So, Go shows VERY, VERY impressive performance numbers in a real-world 
> application, and aligns with my thoughts that Go is ideally suited to 
> replacing systems level software currently written in C/C++.
> 
> Some notes, the Java implementation uses some custom string processing 
> classes to improve performance, but does not use async IO (mainly since doing 
> so with SSL is a huge PITA). The Go server is also FAR more robust in terms 
> of ‘handling slow consumers, handling lots of clients, etc.”
> 
> I might try modifying the Java to use NIO direct buffers and channels to 
> observe any improved performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to