21–30 of 205 posts
Interesting the article jumps straight from REST to GraphQL and forgets Falcor[0] - Netflix's alternative vision for federated services. For a while it looked like it might be a contender to GraphQL but it never really seemed to take off despite being simpler to adopt. [0] https://netflix.github.io/falcor/
>Netflix observed a 20% increase of CPU usage on JDK 17 compared to JDK 8. This was mostly due to the improvements in the G1 garbage collector. Help me here, why do GC improvements cause CPU increase?
The new ZGC uses more CPU but it provides some hard guarantees that it won't block for more than a certain amount of milliseconds. And it supports much larger heap sizes. More CPU sounds worse than it is because you wouldn't want to run your application servers anywhere near 100% CPU typically anyway. So, there is a bit of wiggle room. Also, if your garbage collector is struggling, it's probably because you are nearly running out of memory. So, more memory is the solution in that case.
[flagged]
>Netflix observed a 20% increase of CPU usage on JDK 17 compared to JDK 8. This was mostly due to the improvements in the G1 garbage collector. Help me here, why do GC improvements cause CPU increase?
>Netflix observed a 20% increase of CPU usage on JDK 17 compared to JDK 8. This was mostly due to the improvements in the G1 garbage collector. Help me here, why do GC improvements cause CPU increase?
Most modern GCs trade off CPU usage and latency. Less latency means the CPU has to do more work on e.g. a separate thread to figure out what can be garbage collected. JDK 8 wouldn't have had the G1 collector (I think, or at least a really old version of that) and they would have probably been using one of the now deprecated garbage collectors that would be collecting less often but have a more open ended stop the wor…
>Netflix observed a 20% increase of CPU usage on JDK 17 compared to JDK 8. This was mostly due to the improvements in the G1 garbage collector. Help me here, why do GC improvements cause CPU increase?
Most modern GCs trade off CPU usage and latency. Less latency means the CPU has to do more work on e.g. a separate thread to figure out what can be garbage collected. JDK 8 wouldn't have had the G1 collector (I think, or at least a really old version of that) and they would have probably been using one of the now deprecated garbage collectors that would be collecting less often but have a more open ended stop the wor…
On JDK 8 we are using G1 for our modern application stack, and we saw a reduction in CPU utilisation with the upgrade with few exceptions (saw what I believe is our first regression today: a busy wait in ForkJoinPool with parallel streams; fixed in 19 and later it seems).
G1 has seen the greatest improvement from 8 to 17 compared to its counterparts, and you also see reduced allocation rates due to compact strings (20-30%), so that reduces GC total time.
It's a virtuous cycle for the GRPC services doing the heavy lifting: reduced pauses means reduced tail latencies, fewer server cancellations and client hedging and retries. So improvements to application throughput reduce RPS, and further reduce required capacity over and above the CPU utilisation reduction due to efficiency improvements.
JDK 21 is a much more modest improvement upgrading from 17, perhaps 3%. Virtual threads are incredibly impressive work, and despite having an already highly asynchronous/non-blocking stack, expect to see many benefits. Generational ZGC is fantastic, but losing compressed oops (it requires 64-bit pointers) is about a 20% memory penalty. Haven't yet done a head to head with Genshen. We already have some JDK 21 in production, including a very large DGS service.