[erlang-questions] BERT vs protobuf in the erlang world

Jon Watte <>
Tue Aug 23 02:57:06 CEST 2011


We use protobuf; we wrote our own Erlang generator which is not super
efficient, but better than what was available at the time.
We use C++, Python, and PHP generators on other systems (we wrote the PHP
generator ourselves, too).
Sorry, no feedback on the Java and AS3 generators, but in the system as a
whole, the protobufs work just as expected, including preservation of
unknown fields, and because each 16-hardware-thread node (dual quad-core
hyper-threaded Xeons) only has gigabit Ethernet, we can't really feed a
single node faster than it can parse and process requests. Memory bandwidth
is 50 GB/s or better; Ethernet TCP bandwidth is 110 MB/s :-)

Sincerely,

jw


--
Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living
standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless,
whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption
rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.



On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Mike Oxford <> wrote:

> BERT is pretty much a "known good quantity" but protobuf is more
> efficient on the wire.
>
> Anyone have thoughts on which to go with?
>
> Also, along the BERT side, does anyone have recommendations on AS3 and
> Java implementations of the marshallers?
>
> The downside(s) to protobuf - hard IDLs and you have to build the
> project and generators.
> The downside(s) to BERT - less efficient on the wire (verbosity.)
>
> TIA!
>
> -mox
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110822/53d6e8d8/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list