Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by acroback 2905 days ago
Totally technical considerations which engineers must present and justify.

e.g When we added Go, we had to present what it brings? A good testing framework, light weight(subjective), goroutines(which fit our use case), in built benchmark support, mature support of third party packages etc etc.
2 comments
johndubchak 2905 days ago
Out of curiosity, was it replacing an existing language or developing new functionality?
link
acroback 2905 days ago
New functionality, breaking existing perfectly fine and working functionality is a big no.

One of our core services is written in C, it never crashes, it sustains QPS no other service can in the entire ecosystem, why change it to something new unless there is a solid reasoning to it?

I kid you not, one of the companies we integrated with gave us 2 64 Core VMs in their private cloud to run our service. We run 3 instances of our process on each VM along with Redis taking about 60GB of memory in total, with 59.996 MB of memory taken by Redis. And it was written in Go. Apparently, we miscommunicated that we will be using a GC language for this service. They assumed Java and based on their experience allocated 2 64 core VMs with 256GB memory each :D.

link
YawningAngel 2905 days ago
Aren't literally all of the above present in Java?
link
acroback 2905 days ago
No, we do not want to pay extra to run Java services bloating our measly VMs. Also, we found that it is far easier to get consistent latency with Go code than with Java code.

Again, YMMV benchmark for your use case.

That said, Java doesn't have go routines, doesn't provide low level access to memory, benchmarking framework is easy to work with in Go. Go gives access to sync Pool which when use correctly gives extremely good gains.

One of our measly dual core VMs, can do more than 40k QPS with predictable latency at 99 percentile. With JAVA oom panics were common and latency percentile was all over the place. Sure, you can perhaps tweak the Java code, but it was far easier to do with Go.

link
anxiouspete 2905 days ago
Like the others said, our JVM apps would require at least 1GB for the JVM and then 1-4GB for heap, depending on the service. This made the average JVM service require about 4GB of RAM in the container scheduler.

Meanwhile our Go services almost never had a working set larger than 256MB and most didn't even need that. We could schedule on average 16 Go services for each JVM service.

link
johndubchak 2905 days ago
I love the low overhead.
link
tetha 2905 days ago
They are. Add around 1.5 gig of necessary heap per feature you use.
link