RFA JAVA API Performace (wrt numbers of GC and compared to RFA C++)

We are in favor of choosing the RFA JAVA API. Is the API efficiently built in terms of garbage it generates? Since our application is latency sensitive, we expect no major GC cycles due to garbage from RFA JAVA API.

Also, Is there a recommended API to choose between RFA JAVA and RFA C++ APIs due to performance benefits.?

Can you please have your opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

trep

rfa

performance

rfa-api

Accepted answers

umer.nalla

Hi @sishubha

You may find the following document on MyRefinitiv useful

TREP APIs Performance Test Results - February 2014

It contains comparative performance figures for RFA versions 7.5 and should provide an idea of the differences in performance between RFA Java and C++

The actual real-life differences can vary based on a number of factors including but not limited to your network, infra components, the volatility of our instruments and size of updates etc

All comments

pimchaya.wongrukun01

Hello @sishubha

According to API Concept Guide page 13 in Table 2: API Performance Comparison:

Transport API(ETA) is very high throughput, lowest latency, lowest memory footprint as shown in the table above.

ETA(Elektron Transport API) is one of Elektron API family. ETA is a transport layer API, open source, for the development of high performance and low latency applications. It is available in C and Java edition. For more details, please refer to Elektron API family page.

sishubha

Thanks for the response.

However, the product in our case is "Reuters_Matching_Data_Feed_Direct" which only allows the use of RFA APIs(JAVA/C++) to connect to the MDFD server.

Thus It would be great if you can be more specific about the performace of RFA JAVA API in terms of Latency/Garbage collection and in comparision to RFA C++ API.