On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Amos Shapira <amos.shap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nadav, > > Will it be video taped? > Slides made available? > That would be great > > Thanks, > > --Amos > > On 2 April 2015 at 05:53, Nadav Har'El <n...@math.technion.ac.il> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Back to the Future >> with C++ and Seastar": >> > "Nadav Har'El" <n...@math.technion.ac.il> writes: >> > > Seastar is an open source (http://www.seastar-project.org/) library. >> > > It is based on the concept of "futures" (like in Node.js, just >> implemented >> > > in a much more efficient way). Part of the talk will also introduce >> futures, >> > > how Seastar implements them in C++, and how much C++ has changed in >> recent >> > > years from what you may remember about it. >> > >> > I might come (close to work :). C++ has futures and promises natively, >> > as a part of its standard library. Can you add a couple of words on how >> > Seastar's futures differ? >> >> Sure, though I'm sure Avi will explain it better in his talk :-) >> >> The first difference is that C++11's support for futures is incomplete: >> Futures are supported, but not *continuations*, which are code you want >> to run when the future value becomes available. C++17 will probably have >> continuations, but Seastar has them now. >> >> The second difference is that C++11's futures are indeed powerful, but not >> optimized for performance. They make excessive use of allocations, they >> rely on threads and everything uses atomic operations and locks. Seastar's >> design, on the other hand, is aimed at modern SMP design, for achieving >> the top possible performance: Continuations are very lightweight (not >> based on thread context switching), you write with Seastar a share-nothing >> server (each core deals with its own data) so no locks, no atomic >> operations, >> and very little cache contention. These things make a *huge* difference >> in performance in modern SMPs - especially when you try to scale up to >> many cores. >> >> The third difference is that Seastar is much more than just an >> implementation of futures - it is a complete library for writing >> asynchronous I/O-heavy (network and disk) applications - consider http >> servers, proxies, nosql servers - any server application you can think of >> will be much faster if rewritten in Seastar (Avi will present some >> benchmarks, showing near perfect scalability to 40 cores, 5x speed >> improvements compared to traditional thought-to-be-efficient applications, >> etc. Seastar completely bypasses the operating system by using DPDK, >> but as you may know DPDK only supports L2 packets and has no TCP/IP stack. >> But that's no longer true: We actually implemented in Seastar a full >> TCP/IP stack over DPDK, write in Seastar's own futures framework. >> >> And Seastar is even more. I'll leave a few surprises for Avi's talk ;-) >> >> -- >> Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Apr 1 2015, 13 Nisan >> 5775 >> n...@math.technion.ac.il >> |----------------------------------------- >> Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |My opinions may have changed, but >> not the >> http://nadav.harel.org.il |fact that I am right. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-il mailing list >> Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il >> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il >> > > > > -- > <http://au.linkedin.com/in/gliderflyer> > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > >
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
