[This message was posted by Ian Hoenisch of ESP Technologies LLC <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at 
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at 
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/e61537c4 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]

> Then there is no use for a new Tag if the measurement is from the time
> my system sends a Business message and receives its associated response
> Business message.
> 
> Then the only way is to collect real latency statistics is using
> real business messages during real load times when the same
> hardware is running all applications that are used in real
> production trading periods.

I fully agree with that. For example, the remote end could fool a quicker 
response to the PI/PO or other new msg types. As you point out below, it can be 
fooled. It could be used to give you a rough idea but I prefer to see the real 
performance our customers experience on their trades instead of a rough idea.

> 
> I suggested PI and PO messages as a "tool" to measure end to end round
> trip time and the truth is "any tool and be fooled" :-(
> 
> > Whatever solution you chose can NOT involve the downstream system to
> > insert/modify/etc any tags.
> >
> > Also, the clock slew you'd try to contend with makes any 2 clock
> > system invalid.
> >
> > You have to measure on a single system, so you have to use an echo
> > type of solution, where you
> >
> > 1. send a message, start timer
> > 2. receive the return msg, stop timer
> > 3. Calculate difference
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > > What if the counterparty FIX Driver does not provide the time it
> > > received a message truly instead puts a time which "makes it look
> > > faster"? as a developer, to make my FIX engine and Trading
> > > application faster, I populate this new Tag
> > > RelatedRequestMessageReceiptTime (1427 since 1426 is the last used
> > > tag number in FIX.5.0-SP1) as Sending time
> > > (52) of my out message minus 10 milliseconds - so always my system
> > >      would appear to have 10 ms response time.
> > >
> > > Its the same logic like what Ryan stated "a system with slow
> > > business logic might persuade their engine vendor to implement PI/PO
> > > messages in the engine itself". There is no end to this kind of
> > > cheating.
> > >
> > > > I agree with Ian. If a FIX Driver that receives a message would
> > > > include the time received & the time the response is sent back, to
> > > > the microsecond, when it acknowledges, processes (e.g. trades) or
> > > > rejects a message (e.g. order), then we would know the total time
> > > > used on the far- end as a black box. Subtract this from the total
> > > > time as recorded at the sender and you can determine the bi-
> > > > directional in-flight wire time regardless of any clock-drift
> > > > between the machines. This information is very useful, and it
> > > > would be additionally nice to see it collected & returned for each
> > > > hop.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! -Joey
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > One point to ponder, if you try to measure at the application
> > > > > layer, you have to make sure you have consistent application
> > > > > performance, otherwise your test results will be skewed by what
> > > > > the CPU is doing at the time (i.e. shared with other apps).
> > > > >
> > > > > A better approach may be to look at the network level. Tying the
> > > > > outbound message with the return message, tricky, but do-able.
> > > > > Then measure the latency difference between the messages will
> > > > > give you a much more precise external latency measurement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian
> > > > >


[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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to