Compare commits
No commits in common. "a237a7503c360dcc0f19e8ff3e306b404041afb2" and "83120a9d91a70b704c9bec07b11104c0e581423e" have entirely different histories.
a237a7503c
...
83120a9d91
|
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
|||
from: markdown
|
||||
to: pdf
|
||||
|
||||
output-file: report.pdf
|
||||
output-file: output.pdf
|
||||
input-files:
|
||||
- report.md
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
103
report.md
103
report.md
|
@ -6,113 +6,10 @@
|
|||
|
||||
# Subject
|
||||
|
||||
The first description of my internship project was given to me as:
|
||||
|
||||
> The project is about benchmarking a new service we're building related to
|
||||
> exchange connectivity. It would involve writing a program to generate load on
|
||||
> the new service, preparing a test environment and analyzing the performance
|
||||
> results. Time permitting might also involve making performance improvements to
|
||||
> the services.
|
||||
|
||||
To understand this subject, we must start with an explanation of what exchange
|
||||
connectivity means at IMC: it is the layer in IMC's architecture that ensures
|
||||
the connection between internal trading services and external exchanges' own
|
||||
infrastructure and services. It is at this layer that exchange-specific
|
||||
protocols are normalised into IMC's own protocol messages, and vice versa.
|
||||
|
||||
Here is the list of tasks that I am expected to have accomplished during this
|
||||
internship:
|
||||
|
||||
* become familiar with the service,
|
||||
* write a dummy load generator,
|
||||
* benchmark the system under the load,
|
||||
* analyze the measurements.
|
||||
|
||||
This kind of project is exactly the reason that I was interested in working in
|
||||
finance and trading. It is a field that is focused on achieving the highest
|
||||
performance possible, because being faster is directly tied with making more
|
||||
trades and results in more profits.
|
||||
|
||||
Because I expressed this personal interest for working on high performance
|
||||
systems and related subjects, I was given this internship project to work on.
|
||||
|
||||
# Context of the subject
|
||||
|
||||
The exchange connectivity layer must route orders as fast possible, to stay
|
||||
competitive, reduce transaction costs, and lower latencies which could result in
|
||||
lost opportunities, therefore less profits.
|
||||
|
||||
It must also take on other duties, due to it being closer to the exchange than
|
||||
the rest of the infrastructure. For example, a trading strategy can register
|
||||
conditional orders with this service: it must monitor the price of product A and
|
||||
X, if product A's cost rise over X's, then it must start selling product B at
|
||||
price Y.
|
||||
|
||||
A new exchange connectivity service, called the Execution Gateway, is being
|
||||
built at IMC, the eventual goal being to migrate all trading strategies to using
|
||||
this gateway to send orders to exchanges. This will allow it to be scaled more
|
||||
appropriately. However, care must be taken to maintain the current performance
|
||||
during the entirety of the migration in order to stay competitive, and the only
|
||||
way to ensure this is to measure it.
|
||||
|
||||
With that context, let's review my expected tasks once more, and expand on each
|
||||
of them:
|
||||
|
||||
* Become familiar with the service: before writing the code for the benchmark
|
||||
I must first understand what goes into the process of a trade at IMC, what is
|
||||
needed from the gateway and from the clients in order to run them and execute
|
||||
orders. There is a lot of code at IMC: having different teams working at the
|
||||
same time on different trading service results in a lot of churn. The
|
||||
global execution team was created to centralise the work on core services that
|
||||
must be provided to the rest of the IMC workforce. The global execution
|
||||
gateway is one such project, aiming to consolidate all trading strategies
|
||||
under one singular method to send orders to their exchanges.
|
||||
* Write a dummy load generator: we want to send orders under different
|
||||
conditions in order to run multiple scenarios which can model varying cases
|
||||
of execution. Having more data for varying corner cases can make us more
|
||||
confident of the robustness and efficiency of the service. This is especially
|
||||
needed becaue of the various roles that the gateway must fulfill: not only
|
||||
must it act as a bridge for the communication between exchanges and traders,
|
||||
but also as an order executor. All those cases must be accounted for when
|
||||
writing the different scenarios.
|
||||
* Benchmark the system under the load: once we can run those scenarios smoothly
|
||||
we can start taking multiple measurements. The main one that IMC is interested
|
||||
in is wall-to-wall latency (abbreviated W2W): the time it takes for a trade to
|
||||
go from a trading strategy to an exchange. The lower this time, the more
|
||||
occasions there are to make good trades.
|
||||
FIXME: probably more context in my notes
|
||||
* Analyze the measurements: the global execution team has some initial
|
||||
expectations of the gateway's performance. A divergence on that part could
|
||||
mean that the measurements are flawed in some way, or that the gateway is not
|
||||
performing as expected. Further analysis can be done to look at the difference
|
||||
between mean execution time and the 99th percentile, and analyse the tail of
|
||||
the timing distribution: the smaller it is the better. Consistent timing is
|
||||
more important than a lower average, because we must be absolutely confident
|
||||
that a trade order is going to be executed smoothly, and introducing
|
||||
inconsistent latency can result in bad trades.
|
||||
|
||||
# Internship roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
The first month was dedicated to familiarizing myself with the vocabulary at
|
||||
IMC, understanding the context surrounding the team I am working in, and
|
||||
learning about the different services that are currently being used in their
|
||||
infrastructure. I had to write a first proof of concept to investigate what, if
|
||||
any, dependencies would be needed to execute the gateway as a stand-alone system
|
||||
for the benchmark. This has allowed me to get acquainted with their development
|
||||
process.
|
||||
|
||||
After writing that proof of concept, we were now certain that the benchmark was
|
||||
a feasible project, with very few actual dependencies to be run: the only one
|
||||
that we needed to be concerned with it called the RDS server. The RDS server
|
||||
is responsible for holding the information about all trade-able instruments at
|
||||
an exchange. The gateway connects to it to receive a snapshot of the state of
|
||||
those instruments, for example the mapping from IMC IDs to the ones used by the
|
||||
exchange. I wrote a small module that could be used as a fake RDS server by the
|
||||
benchmark framework to provide its inputs to the gateway being instrumented.
|
||||
|
||||
I am now currently beginning to write the benchmark framework, using what
|
||||
I wrote and learned during the previous month.
|
||||
|
||||
# Engineering practices
|
||||
|
||||
# Illustrated analysis of acquired skills
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue