Received: by 10.224.173.70 with SMTP id o6mr133919qaz.2.1334796334323;
        Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: scala-melb@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.229.2 with SMTP id jg2ls1221042qcb.9.gmail; Wed, 18 Apr
 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.184.137 with SMTP id ck9mr136022qab.1.1334796332801;
        Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.184.137 with SMTP id ck9mr136020qab.1.1334796332790;
        Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <t...@dryft.net>
Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com (mail-qa0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b22si253832qcs.3.2012.04.18.17.45.32
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of t...@dryft.net designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.47;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of t...@dryft.net designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=t...@dryft.net
Received: by qabg1 with SMTP id g1so1019408qab.6
        for <scala-melb@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
        d=google.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:x-gm-message-state;
        bh=J12GUdvSA6QXL2qGuFNjsXqRgYpQgonxpdhob03Oywg=;
        b=RF98t851o0OIWqfhIfTcpQQnVLLDOgy0kokRObwTobaSt1EVfZ28lP1PvEA9Uj37cT
         +zVrfZJkaxs2Iit4euAJKxjdms5GKuXuXY9n0f/KKE0axe8sRR8mQEZtd1EccnLWYPtW
         OOkv7euNRZQn7X5Lzd04B3xN280/tV3Vs/kgu3i4/KLpLbhXPtAUCuDqWsQBbQFH9PW5
         idTit9jV6GbjZF2elgAfrGAE5D/mCbXB9HJ3CyFm98bluW9tEo1pnO6h5jhs+uHhnapu
         S4/jtqe/1nrz06azIo8rYOYEE2x5t6cmW5SCVD+2/I/3WDREiMLVzd1iu29HQE1DitrZ
         RdcA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.87.7 with SMTP id u7mr50071qcl.15.1334796332216; Wed, 18
 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.109.134 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGJkGJ8CEkhdPBbF6j4Ptfb_0xiHaYwD937gHSeQ0A1HoFN...@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABEgq97NxRYi5pVwk2uR4ymuOKaJo8N4qRzuaaX9Fu_z_dH...@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGJkGJ8CEkhdPBbF6j4Ptfb_0xiHaYwD937gHSeQ0A1HoFN...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:45:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CABEgq94cThCyJM2P4W0rd==2W6MAkJ5cqzFFTHyaOWwUtVF...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concurrency considered bad for high performance trading (LMAX)
From: Toby Corkindale <t...@dryft.net>
To: scala-melb@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlEXSF1U3H7ZVx5VnFrE9U8HvhshRLJyHgX3O3nepgF10pfoMcVm0WaUIAO7VK9KZa9vHWR

On 18 April 2012 19:37, Ben Hutchison <brhutchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whoah there! Let's look at what LMAX *actually did*: they built a high
> performance single threaded application.
>
> Kudos to them. But the conclusion that: concurrency => slow isn't inferable
> from this piece of data.

Actually, that did seem to be one of the main points. The argument
being that computer hardware only truly runs fast when the CPU is able
to operate within the CPU caches -- Which occurs when you don't have
lots of threads running and thus requesting lots of random bits of
memory. Also that concurrent writes to the same memory areas destroy
that performance too.

I'm certainly not taking it as gospel, but I thought it was an
interesting article, and relevant to the recent discussions about
Actors.

Toby