RFC: seeking feedback on async_hooks performance in production

[refack]

• Version: v8.x - master
• Platform: all
• Subsystem: async_hooks

node@8.0.0 saw the introduction of async_hooks the latest and greatest incarnation of core's tracing API (#11883 - based on https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/blob/master/006-asynchooks-api.md)
The @nodejs/async_hooks teams would love to hear feedback, especially regarding performance in production apps (CPU/memory usage), but also synthetics benchmarking results.
Any other feedback will also be welcome, as well as issues and PRs.

Thanks.

[AndreasMadsen]

@nodejs/diagnostics

[hybrist]

I'm guessing the instructions for a non-synthetic benchmark would be:

• Run an actual app on node 8 in prod.
• Turn on async_hooks (require('async_hooks').enable() should be enough?).
• Compare memory/CPU stats.

If so, I might get some data in the coming weeks (wanted to give 8.3 a spin anyhow in one of our services).

[AndreasMadsen]

@jkrems You actually need to add empty hooks functions, otherwise nothing changes.

[refack]

@jkrems I that will be great!

@jkrems You actually need to add empty hooks functions, otherwise nothing changes.

It will be a fair exercise to suss out memory leaks.

[refack]

There is the example trace snippet from nodejs.org/api/async_hooks.html (slightly simplified):

let indent = '';
const traceFile = 1; // for stdout
async_hooks.createHook({
  init(asyncId, type, triggerAsyncId) {
    const eid = async_hooks.executionAsyncId();
    fs.writeSync(
      traceFile,
      `${indent}${type}(${asyncId}): trigger: ${triggerAsyncId} execution: ${eid}\n`);
  },
  before(asyncId) {
    fs.writeSync(traceFile , `${indent}before:  ${asyncId}\n`);
    indent += '  ';
  },
  after(asyncId) {
    indent = indent.slice(2);
    fs.writeSync(traceFile , `${indent}after:   ${asyncId}\n`);
  },
  destroy(asyncId) { fs.writeSync(traceFile , `${indent}destroy: ${asyncId}\n`); },
}).enable();

[tutman96]

Been running it in production on several high traffic components since 4.2.1 and have had no major memory leaks. No performance degradation compared to the old async-listeners implementation.

One thing we did notice was the asynchronous hooks generated by promises didn't get "destroy"ed until the promise got garbage collection. This caused a little bit of memory run away under very high traffic (synthetic traffic) but haven't noticed any problems with real world traffic.

[elierotenberg]

Hello,

I believe https://github.com/angular/zone.js/issues/889 might interest you!

[vdeturckheim]

I'm under the impression Google started using is in production in their APM. googleapis/cloud-trace-nodejs@0e15b6c

[matthewloring]

We are currently experimenting with async hooks but it is still behind a flag while we evaluate it. We found it to be slightly slower than the continuation-local-storage based approach but we still think it will be the right way forward especially once more modules start using the embedder API to record their own async events removing the need for some of our monkeypatching. We can update this thread once we gather more info on how async hooks is working for us.

[vdeturckheim]

awesome ! Thanks @matthewloring . When running with the CLS, is the monkeypatching on all async methods still applied ? Might have a performance boost there.