Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

I would hope that any reasonably performant implementation would be faster not only than NVMe, but also faster than CPU to RAM data transfers.

The AMD EPYC-Milan in the test server supports memory reads at 150 gigabytes/sec, but thats a 32 core machine, and our test only gets 8 of those cores, so we probably can't expect more than 37 gigabytes per second of read bandwidth.

The total file is ~12 gigabytes, so we should expect to be able to get the task done in 0.3 seconds or so.

There are only ~400 weather stations, so all the results fit in cache. It's unclear if it might be faster to avoid converting ascii to a float - it might be faster to add up all the ascii numbers, and figure out how to convert to a float only when you have the total.

View on HN

> any reasonably performant implementation would be faster not only than NVMe

Saturating NVMe bandwidth is wicked hard if you don't know what you're doing. Most people think they're I/O bound because profiling hinted at some read() function somewhere, when in fact they're CPU bound in a runtime layer they don't understand.

Can you elaborate on the runtime layers and how to affect them?

> The total file is ~12 gigabytes, so we should expect to be able to get the task done in 0.3 seconds or so.

How? EPYC-Milan features PCIe 4.0 and theoretical maximum throughput of x4 sequential read is ~8GB/s.

In bare-metal machines, this figure is rather closer to 5-6GB/s, and in cloud environments such as CCX33, I imagine it could be even less.

So, unless I am missing something you'd need ~2 seconds only to read the contents of the ~12GB file.

This assumes the file is already in page cache, and therefore already in RAM. The 0.3 seconds is the time to get it from RAM to the CPU L3 cache.

That sounds like cheating. The exercise says to process a large file that's on disk. If the data is in RAM then that's a whole different game.

Isn’t it run multiple times and the slowest is dropped? Why would you expect the file to be evicted from ram so quickly?

The benchmark is run 5 times without flushing file system caches. If you mmap it, it will still be in memory between process runs. The author intended this FWIW

If the cache is not flushed, it will still be in memory between runs whether you mmap it or not.

That depends a lot on the OS. I would not count on a 13 GB file being cached in RAM after having been read through once.

That sounds like a benchmarking flaw.

But then, writing good benchmarks is an art in itself.

That makes sense now, thanks.

Are you sure that would give the same result? The first thing that struck me about this challenge is that there's going to be floating point precision issues.

All the data is only to one decimal place. You can shift the decimal place and do the whole thing with int's and get a 100% precise result.

You can, but will it be the same result? :) binary floating point can't represent 0.1 or 0.2 exactly.

To be fair, with only additions, and only a billion of them, you're probably fine working in floating point and rounding to one decimal in the end.

Just x10 it and count in integers?

I said that works here. The point is that floating point may give a different answer.

It looks like all existing solutions are too slow by a huge factor then :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com