HLSL · Performance · Help: hlsl-perf fails to start intermittently in containers, logs inside

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

I just read the hlsl-perf source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

I just read the hlsl-perf source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

One counter-example: below hlsl-perf 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

This is not a hlsl-perf problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

One counter-example: below hlsl-perf 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

I just read the hlsl-perf source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

This is not a hlsl-perf problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

One counter-example: below hlsl-perf 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

This is not a hlsl-perf problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

This is not a hlsl-perf problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

One counter-example: below hlsl-perf 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

This is not a hlsl-perf problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

I just read the hlsl-perf source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.