List of "FAST features because of which FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT"

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

Would it benefit this working group’s goals to study why FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT? MDOWG’s work made Market Data work well over FAST, but FIX Trading data / workflows do NOT work well . Maybe we could compile a list of “FAST features because of which FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT” or is such a list already available somewhere?

3

good idea. Georges and I have already exchanged a few mails privately re FAST encoding of trading message flows.

It’s not that FAST is deemed to be unsuitable. We rather thought that it would be wrong to have FAST as a base alternative from the start. I’m for using FAST 1.3 or a variant thereof as that we give us the opportunity to re-use some of the work already done within mdowg. At the same time, I believe that there will be other trade-offs to make in the trading area.

I’ll compile and publish something as soon as I can.

Best,
Rolf

Would it benefit this working group’s goals to study why FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT? MDOWG’s work made Market Data work well over FAST, but FIX Trading data / workflows do NOT work well . Maybe we could compile a list of “FAST features because of which FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT” or is such a list already available somewhere?

4

Jacob and I discussed this - the use of FAST with possibly only Constant and Default operators should be more than sufficient to meet the needs for high volume trading.

I think there is still work that must be performed at the transport level as we discussed.

But, as you Rolf and others have said many times, the key is addressing the business level semantics is very important and independent of transport decisions.

good idea. Georges and I have already exchanged a few mails privately re FAST encoding of trading message flows.

It’s not that FAST is deemed to be unsuitable. We rather thought that it would be wrong to have FAST as a base alternative from the start. I’m for using FAST 1.3 or a variant thereof as that we give us the opportunity to re-use some of the work already done within mdowg. At the same time, I believe that there will be other trade-offs to make in the trading area.

I’ll compile and publish something as soon as I can.

Best,
Rolf

Would it benefit this working group’s goals to study why FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT? MDOWG’s work made Market Data work well over FAST, but FIX Trading data / workflows do NOT work well . Maybe we could compile a list of “FAST features because of which FIX over FAST is not suitable for HFT” or is such a list already available somewhere?