Upgrade to Pro
— share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …
Speaker Deck
Sign up for free
Menu
Search
Features
All features
Private URLs
Password Protection
Custom URLS
Scheduled publishing
Remove Branding
Restrict embedding
Deck Collections
Notes
Features
All features
Private URLs
Password Protection
Custom URLS
Scheduled publishing
Remove Branding
Restrict embedding
Deck Collections
Notes
Explore
Featured decks
Featured speakers
Programming
Technology
Storyboards
Explore
Featured decks
Featured speakers
Programming
Technology
Storyboards
Pricing
Search
Sign in
Sign up for free
Concurrency Basics for Elixir
Search
Sponsored
·
SiteGround - Reliable hosting with speed, security, and support you can count on.
→
Maciej Kaszubowski
August 02, 2018
Programming
180
0
Share
Embed
Copy iframe code
Copy JS code
Copy link
Start on current slide
Concurrency Basics for Elixir
Slides from internal presentation at
https://appunite.com
Maciej Kaszubowski
August 02, 2018
More Decks by Maciej Kaszubowski
See All by Maciej Kaszubowski
Error-free Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
490
Modular Design in Elixir (ElixirConf EU 2019)
mkaszubowski
2
960
The Big Ball of Nouns
mkaszubowski
0
170
Modular Design in Elixir
mkaszubowski
1
430
Our three years with Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
320
Distributed Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
230
Software Architecture
mkaszubowski
0
180
Let it crash - fault tolerance in Elixir/OTP
mkaszubowski
0
570
CRDTs - The science behind Phoenix Presence
mkaszubowski
2
330
Other Decks in Programming
See All in Programming
Kotlinize Is Not Just Converting to Kotlin
chigichan24
1
220
AI Augmentation Techniques with Liberty
ivargrimstad
1
400
當我們開始不讀 Code - AI Agent 時代,Code Review 與 Clean Code 還剩下什麼?
jame2408
1
360
Vapor Mode でアクセシビリティは 壊れないか検証した話
fuqda
1
330
オーケストレーション記述言語 Katari
yukikurage
0
240
flutter_test のその先へ — Flutter アプリの LLM 機能に「評価」という品質保証を
kosukesaigusa
0
200
Augmenting AI with the Power of Jakarta EE
ivargrimstad
0
180
Long Living Tokens, Die, Die, Die! (or: The One Ring is Banned in Modern)
sylph01
0
410
Будущее локальных LLM – Алексей Голобурдин, PythoNN
sobolevn
0
110
作れる、でも消せるか?──安全に「枯らして消す」機能削除術 / Drain, Then Delete
chobishiba
3
1.4k
クラウドエージェントは、 何がそんなに便利なのか / what makes cloud agents so useful
rkaga
5
800
AWS CDKを理解するために公式の定義を深掘って解説してみる / Understanding AWS CDK by Digging into Its Official Definition
akihisaikeda
3
290
Featured
See All Featured
WENDY [Excerpt]
tessaabrams
14
40k
Making Projects Easy
brettharned
120
6.8k
Faster Mobile Websites
deanohume
310
32k
Distributed Sagas: A Protocol for Coordinating Microservices
caitiem20
333
23k
Game over? The fight for quality and originality in the time of robots
wayneb77
1
330
Improving Core Web Vitals using Speculation Rules API
sergeychernyshev
21
1.7k
We Are The Robots
honzajavorek
0
440
Avoiding the “Bad Training, Faster” Trap in the Age of AI
tmiket
1
300
Organizational Design Perspectives: An Ontology of Organizational Design Elements
kimpetersen
PRO
1
880
Claude Code のすすめ
schroneko
67
230k
RailsConf & Balkan Ruby 2019: The Past, Present, and Future of Rails at GitHub
eileencodes
141
35k
HDC tutorial
michielstock
2
1k
Transcript
Concurrency basics For Elixir-based Systems
None
So, what’s concurrency?
Sequential Execution (3 functions, 1 thread)
Sequential Execution (3 functions, 1 thread) Concurrent Execution (3 functions,
3 threads)
Sequential Execution (3 functions, 1 thread) Concurrent Execution (3 functions,
3 threads) Preemptive scheduling
Where’s the benefit?
Req1 Req2 Req3 Resp Sequential Execution time Waiting time
Req1 Req2 Req3 Resp Req1 Resp Req2 Req3 Sequential Concurrent
Execution time Waiting time
CPU bound Re Re Re Res Re Res Re Re
I/O bound
Concurrent or Parallel What’s the difference?
Concurrent Execution (3 functions, 3 threads)
Concurrent Execution (3 functions, 3 threads) Parallel Execution (3 functions,
3 threads, 2 cores) core 1 core 2
root@kingschat-api-c8f8d6b76-4j65j:/app# nproc 12 root@tahmeel-api-prod-b5979bdc6-q5wz6:/# nproc 1 How many cores?
Concurrent Execution (3 functions, 3 threads) Parallel Execution (3 functions,
3 threads, 2 cores) core 1 core 2 (by default) One erlang scheduler per core
:observer_cli.start()
None
Req1 Req2 Req3 Resp Req1 Resp Req2 Req3 Sequential Concurrent
Execution time Waiting time Req1 Resp Req2 Req3 Parallel
Sequential execution
Phoenix Request Req 1
Phoenix Request Resp
Phoenix Request Req 2
Phoenix Request Resp
Phoenix Request Req 3
Phoenix Request Resp
Concurrent execution
Phoenix Request
Phoenix Request Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Phoenix Request Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Req 1
Req 2 Req 3
Phoenix Request Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Resp Resp
Resp
Phoenix Request Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
R1 APP Server DB Server (3 cores) R2 R1 R2
Time Execution time Waiting time
R1 APP Server DB Server (3 cores) Send resp R2
R3 R1 R2 R3 Time Execution time Waiting time
How much can we gain?
Amdahl’s Law
Amdahl’s Law
Amdahl’s Law in a nutshell The more synchronisation, the less
benefit from multiple cores
R1 APP Server Send resp R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Time Execution time Waiting time Almost 100% parallel (almost no synchronisation) DB Server (3 cores)
But…
R1 APP Server Send resp R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Time Execution time Waiting time This is not constant DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server Send resp R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Time Execution time Waiting time This is not infinite DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 Time
Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 Time
Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R4
Time Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R4
Time Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R4
Time Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server Send resp R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
R4 R4 Time Execution time Waiting time DB Server (3 cores)
R1 APP Server R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R4
Time Execution time Waiting time R5 R6 R7 R5 R6 R7 DB Server (3 cores)
Phoenix Request Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Req 1
Req 2 Req 3 Remember this?
This isn’t exactly true
None
Connection pool (Prevents from overworking the DB)
Pool Manager (Blocks until a free worker is available)
None
Pool Manager (Blocks until a free worker is available)
None
It gets worse
Pool Manager Mailbox Has to be synchronised
Pool Manager Message Passing Is just copying data in shared
memory
Pool Manager Remember semaphores?
Logger Metrics Sentry
Network stack
Network stack
Network stack
Network stack Sentry Metrics
OS Threads (Garbage Collection) Data Bus Virtual Machines Memory characteristics
(e.g. processor caches) … Other synchronisation points
That’s hard
That’s REALLY hard
That’s REALLY hard Seriously, people spend their entire careers on
this
So, what to do?
Measure
Measure Measure
Measure Measure Measure
Measure ON PRODUCTION
Measure ON PRODUCTION You WILL get false results on staging/locally
Measure Entire system You WILL get false results for single
functions
Measure ONLY IF YOU HAVE TRAFFIC
“premature optimization is the root of all evil”
If something takes X ms, it will always take X
ms.
Async execution cannot “remove” this time It can only hide
it
BACK PRESSURE
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer Stop
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer
Producent Consumer Consumer OK, give me more
Producent Consumer Consumer
None
Back pressure
Thanks!