Whoa, that's a very strong statement. But then the rest of the paragraph gets a lot weaker.
> there are high-performance computation packages that compress data structures in L1-cached-sized blocks
This seems like a non sequitur. Of course hand-tuned data structures can achieve higher performance than any serialization framework, but what does that have to do with zero-copy vs. protobuf? Are you suggesting that protobuf encoding would be a good choice for these people?
> So, you've used the word "achieve" to decorate an outcome that might not be optimal.
I'm not sure why "achieve" would imply "optimal". Of course whether this is an advantage depends on the use case.
There are many cases where zero-copy doesn't provide any real advantages. If you're just sending messages over a standard network socket, then yeah, zero-copy probably isn't going to make things faster. There are already several copies inherent in network communication.
But if you have a huge protobuf file on disk and you want to read one field in the middle of it, that's just not something you can do in any sort of efficient way. With zero-copy, you can do this trivially with mmap().
Or if you're communicating over shared memory between processes on the same machine, then the entire serialize/parse round trip required with protobuf is 100% waste. Zero-copy would let you build and consume the structure from the same memory pages.
These seem "intrinsically valuable"?
> we could never get flatbuffers to go any faster.
What use case were you testing? Did you test any zero-copy serializations other than flatbuffers?
I've heard from lots of people that say Cap'n Proto beat Protobuf in their tests... but it definitely depends on the use case.
This is the part I don’t agree with. What I’m saying there is value in using encoded structures not only between servers and not only over shared memory but even within a single process. Yes, you discard the ability to just jump to any random field, but that is not always important. Often it can be better to spend some compute cycles and L1 accesses to save main memory accesses. If you are having to make full access to some kind of data anyway, then packing it makes a ton of sense. Consider any kind of delta-encoded column of values ... you can’t seek within it, but if the deltas are smaller than the absolutes, this can save massive amounts of main memory bandwidth. This is why I argue that representing something as a C struct in main memory is not obviously advantageous, outside some given workloads.
As for flatbuf at google I’m sure you’re aware that the only way to get the kind of mindshare you’d need to ship it would be to make websearch measurably faster.
It doesn't seem to me like Protobuf is ideal for this use case, but sure, I see how the light compression afforded by Protobuf encoding could lead to a win vs. bare C structs.
I think a better answer here, though, would be to use an actual compression algorithm that has been tuned for this purpose.
Of course, then the uncompressed data needs to be position-independent, so no (native) pointers. You could use something hand-rolled here... but also, this is exactly the problem zero-copy serializations solve, so they might be a good fit here. Hmm!
I'd be pretty interested to compare layering a zero-copy serialization on top of compression vs. protobuf encoding in these high-performance computing scenarios. Is that something you tried doing?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/compact-data-structures...
I don't think this is the criticism being raised.
The main criticism being raised against non-zero-copy serialization is that this often requires maintaining different memory representations for the same value - the copies are the consequence of transforming from one representation to another one.
They are not talking about "unpacking on the fly for processing", but rather about "unpacking on memory to be able to call an opaque API outside your control that expects the unpacked representation". That requires copying in-memory to interface with that API.
Your approach only works if you are willing to "re-implement the world" to interface with whatever packed format suits your application.
With zero-copy serialization you don't have to do that.
It feels like you're conflating things here.
It's not always a better algorithm, but it's a better definition.
What about in embedded code, or in a game? A place where memory bandwidth is scarce, or where we're trying desperately to reduce the number of syscalls and jumps back and forth between kernel and user space?
Having the entire payload memory mapped, and copies avoided, makes an absolutely huge difference once these kinds of concerns are real. Having something mmap'd in theory means it's nice and hot and fresh in the kernel's mind, and potentially kept in cache.
Some people in my team had gRPC foisted on them to run on an ARM Cortex class device running a real time OS. It boggled my mind they were even able to get it to ship. Using something like flatbuffers would have made a lot more sense.
At Google protobuf is the veritable "once I have a hammer everything looks like a nail", to the point where I've seen protobufs in JSON payloads, or vice versa, or even deeper... protobof in JSON inside a Chromium Mojo payload... because, well, how good could it be without protobuf?
I shipped an embedded project using an RTOS and < 256kB RAM using protocol buffers (even nested ones) and zero-copy deserialization for byte arrays some time ago. We used nanopb, and it worked just fine if you understand how it works - although it certainly is less pleasant to work with than a fuller implementation which would just have copied out the internal bytes into new arrays and not have let us deal with lots of internal pointers into byte arrays.
Overall using Protocol Buffers was a great success in that project, since we could share schemas between IoT devices and the backend, and were able to generate a lot of code which would otherwise have been hand-written.
> Using something like flatbuffers would have made a lot more sense.
It might be able to solve the same problem. But it also needs to answer the questions: Is a suitable library available for all consumers of the data-structure? I don't think this was the case for our use-case, so it wouldn't have made more sense to use it back then.
Weird rebuttal, considering that my argument is that the copying nature of protobuf can save memory bandwidth.
Huh? An extra pass over the data to parse it obviously uses more memory bandwidth.
I might understand your argument if parsing converted the data into a memory-bandwidth-optimized format, but the protobuf parsed form is certainly not that, unless things have changed very drastically since I worked on it.
At Google scale protobuf works perfectly fine. It's our lingua franca and a lot of work (apparently by yourself included) has gone into making it performant. But it comes with normative lifestyle assumptions.
Sure you could change the wire format and implementation to be mappable; but then it wouldn't be compatible with the mainstream implementation.
FlatBuffers can be accessed instantly without deserialization or allocation, so clearly in some cases a huge speedup is possible. If in your case there was no speedup, there must be other bottlenecks.
> A direct mapping to memory is not always optimal for performance.
You comment seems to imply that the first statement follows from the second, but it does not. You're right, a direct memory mapping might not be optimal in some situations, but then again in some others it might be optimal. So this feature isn't always useful to everyone, but it doesn't follow that it's never useful to anyone.
Even if you worked on this on a range of projects at Google, isn't it possible that there are people working on systems that have rather different performance characteristics than Google's systems?
By the way I worked on protobuf performance at Google for years and we could never get flatbuffers to go any faster.