[zinxq]

I think we're in agreement. Ignoring under the hood - Loom's programming paradigm (from the viewpoint of control flow) is the Threading programming paradigm. (Virtual)Thread-per-connection programming is easier and far more intuitive than asynchronous (i.e. callback-esque) programming.

I still attest though - The 5M connections in this example is still a red herring.

Can we get to 6M? Can we get to 10M? Is that a question for Loom or Java's asynchronous IO system? No - it's a question for the operating system.

Loom and Java NIO can handle probably a billion connections as programmed. Java Threads cannot - although that too is a broken statement. "Linux Threads cannot" is the real statement. You can't have that many for resource reasons. Java Threads are just a thin abstraction on top of that.

Linux out of the box can't do 5M connections (last I checked). It takes Linux tuning artistry to get it there.

Don't get me wrong - I think Loom is cool. It's attempted to do the same thing as Async/Await tried - just better. But it is most definitely not the only way to achieve 5MM connections with Java or anything else. Possibly however, it's the most friendly and intuitive way to do it.

*We typically vilify Java Threads for the Ram they consume. Something like 1M per thread or something (tunable). Loom must still use "some" ram per connection although surely far far less (and of course Linux must use some amount of kernel ram per connection too).

[mike_hearn]

I don't quite follow your argument.

Saying "Linux cannot handle 5M connections with one thread per connection" isn't a reasonable statement because no operating system can do that, they can't even get close. The resource usage of a kernel thread is defined by pretty fundamental limits in operating system architecture, namely, that the kernel doesn't know anything about the software using the thread. Any general purpose kernel will be unable to provision userspace with that many threads without consuming infeasible quantities of RAM.

The reason JVM virtual threads can do this is because the JVM has deep control and understanding of the stack and the heap (it compiled all the code). The reason Loom scalability gets worse if you call into native code is that then you're back to not controlling the stack.

Getting to 10M is therefore very much a question for the JVM as well as the operating system. It'll be heavily affected by GC performance with huge heaps, which luckily modern G1 excels at, it'll be affected by the performance of the JVM's userspace schedulers (ForkJoinPool etc), it'll be affected by the JVM's internal book-keeping logic and many other things. It stresses every level of the stack.

[pron]

> But it is most definitely not the only way to achieve 5MM connections with Java or anything else. Possibly however, it's the most friendly and intuitive way to do it.

It is the only way to achieve that many connections with Java in a way that's debuggable and observable by the platform and its tools, regardless of its intuitiveness or friendliness to human programmers. It's important to understand that this is an objective technical difference, and one of the cornerstones of the project. Computations that are composed in the asynchronous style are invisible to the runtime. Your server could be overloaded with I/O, and yet your profile will show idle thread pools.

Virtual threads don't just allow you to write something you could do anyway in some other way. They actually do work that has simply been impossible so far at that scale: they allow the runtime and its tools to understand how your program is composed and observe it at runtime in a meaningful and helpful way.

One of the main reasons so many companies turn to Java for their most important server-side applications is that it offers unmatched observability into what the program is doing (at least among other languages/platforms with similar performance). But that ability was missing for high-scale concurrency. Virtual threads add it to the platform.