But is the code shitty? It looks like boring normal code to me. I'm not sure what point you're making here.

The point of the article is that you can write really boring normal code in NodeJS and it's really slow, or you can write really boring normal code in Rust and it's a lot faster, and it's not that hard to use the latter to replace hot paths in the former.

The point the parent is making is that the boring normal code in NodeJS is not slow, at least not as presented in the article. The bottleneck is probably somewhere else. Allocation is usually not slow in a garbage collected language. Deallocation can be, but that is usually easy to check (for example with the --trace-gc flag, or running with profiling enabled and checking the results with chrome devtools). It would have been nice if they shared such analysis.

With the limited information provided in the article, there are other points that I would check before going as far as writing a module in another language. For example

> records.push({

They are collecting all the parsed rows in a single array. This is going to consume memory proportional to the size of the file, potentially in the same order of magnitude (depends on how much information is being collected and how much discarded).

> But is the code shitty? It looks like boring normal code to me. I'm not sure what point you're making here.

1. It should never be that stupidly slow

2. That should be obvious to anyone with a napkin and some math

3. Excessive allocations are highly unlikely to be the root cause of the slowness

4. Instead of debugging, they seemingly spent a lot of time putting it on Kubernetes, scaling it out to 25 instances and then finally rewriting a portion of it in Rust.

The whole thing smells of confusion and multiple issues being conflated together, with the rewrite in rust fixing these by virtue of deletion.

And if the root is was the GC, then some `--trace-gc` output in the post would be nice at the absolute minimum. Showing a for loop with a string split doesn't cut it.

Exactly. I'm not a super-expert in Node.js but worked a lot with it and also know a lot of internals.

And I can definitely say: IO speed is pretty good. To be honest, I've never come across a language with bad IO speed and I've seen quite a lot of languages.

I also did some benchmarks (like orf did) and speed is pretty good. Maybe Rust is a little bit better because it's nearer to syscalls than Node.js is but we're not talking about 760kb/s vs. 250mb/s.

200GB of logs and 25 instances means 8GB per instance. Not sure what they're doing, but processing of 8GB taking 3h is like doing it with my 80286 processor ;-) Even with inserting stuff in MongoDB this seems way to slow. And they only replaced the file IO part with Rust...

I guess the records array is getting pretty huge which might result in swapping to disk. But then: don't let it happen, just flush it to the database or whatever. I believe the problem could have been solved with Node.js without issues.

It's probably all the memory allocations. I know that when I do work like this, creating a huge array up front and assigning to that typically results in massive speedups.

I know basically nothing about Node though, so I could be completely wrong here.

Yeah that's one way to do it. Another is to reuse structures where possible to not force reallocation. There's a bunch of ways.

Node.js has a decent JIT, or so I've heard. I have experience with the HotSpot JVM. For the JVM this code would absolutely stop allocating on the heap past 10k iterations of the loop. "Split a string then grab the parts in a hot loop" is ground stakes for JIT compilers.

If they are seeing any GC activity once the loop gets hot, something else is going very wrong.

Yeah but if you're appending in a loop you'll need to allocate memory every time, right? Can a JIT avoid or rewrite this?

Yep the Hotspot JIT will absolutely allocate on the stack and reuse memory allocations inside loops. It also has escape analysis and it will detect you don't need the array of strings after the iteration. In that case it usually just allocates the strings directly at their final locations on the record object.

Wow, that's super cool. Almost makes me wish i did stuff on the JVM (but until someone rewrites LAPACK for it, that seems unlikely).

The low throughput is definitely a code smell.

In my experience, a common mistake here is to read the data faster than you process it and run out of memory. For example, maybe they have a loop reading lines and doing a bunch of async DB writes: your process will read at disk speed and write at database speed, and you'll run out of memory.

Perhaps this is why it worked to split the file into 8GB units X 25 servers: it didn't blow their memory budget per server.

Try it with something a little bigger than what you used. Then you would have seen that the GC kicks in and performance goes down after about 2GB of processed data.

With my first try with bigger data it blew up with an out of heap memory error. The article mentions them having memory problems as well. They probably operated at the upper levels of available memory and even got into swapping and then 700kb/s is not surprising.

So yes, this absolutely looks like a memory allocation issue.

Yes, of course the unbounded array will cause you to run out of memory. That’s… not news, and it absolutely isn’t a “memory allocation issue” in the sense they are using it in the post.

Try modifying it to clear the array (a DB flush, if you will) every 100k lines.

That's what you get if you use the (simplified) example code that is in the article. It's also what you can derive from their description of the problem.

Now we don't have any Rust code to compare so we can't say how it's different. But everything points towards to a memory allocation issue that is just not their in simple Rust code.

Following you in the abstract, but still a bit confused.

* "unbounded array" - are you referring to `records`?

* If so, is the memory of `records` too large? Or is it that `records[i].pathname` has a reference to `fields[7]`, AND v8 will retain all copies of `fields` until the loop is done?

Do you think this code would be more GC-friendly?

```

let count = 0;

const MAX = 1000;

const flushedRecords = [];

for await (const line of readlineStream) {

  const fields = line.split('\t');

  const httpStatus = Number(fields[5]);

  if (httpStatus < 200 || httpStatus > 299) continue;

  records.push({

    pathname: fields[7],

    referrer: fields[8],

    // ...

  });

  if(count == MAX || isLastLine(line)){

   flushedRecords.push([...records]);

   records = [];
   
    count = 0;

  } else {
    count++;
  }
  

}

```

Or were you thinking something totally different?

We know a few concrete things:

1. It parses 200gb at an average rate of 700kb/s

2. The job splits strings into a format that is loaded into mongodb

3. There where OOM errors that went away with a smaller workload

None of this points to an inherent issue with NodeJS and the way it references memory.

The speed issue alone points to a different problem root cause, and the post is completely lacking in concrete analysis.

If v8 is being dumb and retains references to huge strings, then understanding this is the case and forcing a copy (and thus enabling the gc to reclaim data) is quicker and easier than any of their attempts at fixing the issue.

Splitting a small TSV file and loading it into mongo can be done with even the most memory inefficient language without issue.

"and the post is completely lacking in concrete analysis."

I do agree here, but I think it's telling that the rust solution is, without analysis, just better.

Is this the best developer or best case study? Perhaps not, but it is interesting in that little analysis was needed.

In the case where you have some constraint placed on you (running in the browser, company policy forbids rust e.g.), the analysis is worthwhile. Otherwise, assuming the fix didn't take long (relative to the requisite analysis and dev training), the decision to switch to a less shoot-yourself-in-the-foot language seems reasonable to me.

I think we can all agree that the blog article, while interesting and tells a story about the way the author solved a problem, does not have high enough rigor to serve as a benchmark for "don't do this, do this instead", or "this language is bad at this, and this one is better". Those types of statements would require much more rigor and A vs B comparisons where code A and code B are the same, just in different languages.

BUT, what I am interested in - if I'm using javascript to parse a large file line by line, plucking off specific fields like the example does, what can I try to see if it's more GC-friendly? Obviously the answer is always some flavor of "profile it" and "it depends". If the blog author could have gotten a big boost in performance by adding 10 lines of js code to their loop, that is something all readers of the article could benefit from.

I will play around with it and see what I can learn about the V8 GC. For reference: here is a talk about profiling the ruby gc, which helped me fix a memory leak at work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZcqyuPeDao).

There's a lot of other considerations when adding a new language. Questions come up such as:

* How long does it take to ramp up on the new code base (author notwithstanding as a user of Rust outside of the company)?

* If the author of the code is sick and there's a bug, or logic needs to be added, how hard would it be for someone else to do this work?

* What is the build story for the Rust code like? How does it integrate with existing CI?

* How do you store the Rust library? Some artifact store that Node can interact with?

Without more details, unless the company was already writing Rust, this doesn't seem like a reasonable choice at all. Doing some profiling and experimenting with allocation, along with comments as to why you're doing something that's not naive (e.g. appending to a large array) seems much cheaper than doing all this Rust work.

> They just stuck a job queue on it and then rewrote part of it in Rust

IMO that's not an inappropriate response here. You can make this code in Node, but it's super-awkward trying to reduce string allocations in JavaScript. Much easier to rewrite in Rust where such things will be fast even with the naive code. For code such as this you can likely do a 1:1 port of the Node code and it will be 10x faster. Which is much better than getting yourself in twists trying to make Node fast at tasks it's not good at.

I took the code from their post, the one they highlighted as the issue, string allocations and all, and ran it. It was 1000x as fast as their self-reported runtime.

Does this really, really not scream “there is another issue” to you?

Do you really think, even with string allocations in a hot loop, NodeJS with its very optimised runtime would struggle to hit 1mb/s?

Naive Rust code is super-awkward compared to naive JS code. I doubt one can do 1:1 port of anything more complex than Hello World (even FizzBuzz may get you tripped up).

Not sure what you mean by naive rust, but for Rust has good webassembly integration. To give you some context, here's a post I made about rewriting 10k lines of js into rust: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/k3jy5g/i_rewrote_10k_... (I went on to rewrite the server from nodejs to rust too)

YMMV, but my Rust code ends up looking pretty much identical to my TypeScript code most of the time. And especially for code like this where there are no complex lifetimes.

I disagree. At my job I rewrote an environment variable injector module written in JavaScript into pure Rust. Not only was it straightforward, but I'm fairly certain I finished the Rust port faster than it would have taken to port it another language like Python or Go.