SERVICES / ENGINEERING
EVIDENCED BY THE ARCHIVE
Throughput and latency work where the measurement methodology is part of the deliverable.
WHO THIS IS FOR — Code that is measurably too slow, where the first deliverable is a profile and the second is a guarded, measured improvement.
THE PROBLEM IT ADDRESSES
- Performance claims without reproducible measurement: no hardware, no dataset, no harness.
- Premature optimisation of the wrong layer because the profile was never taken.
- Numeric code that changed behaviour when compiler flags or dependency versions moved.
EXPECTED DELIVERABLES
- A profiling-driven analysis identifying the actual bottleneck before any optimisation.
- An optimisation pass with before/after measurements from the same harness and hardware.
- A benchmark suite committed alongside the code so regressions are caught in CI.
OUT OF SCOPE
- Hardware procurement or infrastructure redesign.
- Optimisation of third-party code you do not own.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
HOW THE WORK IS DONE
Low-latency systems work — memory-mapped I/O, serialization elimination and bare-metal throughput.
SCHEMATIC · SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
METHODS
C11 · POSIX API · -O3 optimization · Zero allocations on hot path
EVIDENCE
billing-data-gateway is written in C11 against the POSIX API and built at -O3, eliminating serialization from the hot path.
LIMITATIONS
SCOPE & LIMITS
- Every figure carries its measurement context — results do not transfer silently between environments.
- Optimisation trades readability for speed; the tradeoff is documented, not hidden.
WORKING PROCESS
HOW THIS ENGAGEMENT RUNS
- 01PROFILE BEFORE TOUCHING CODE
- 02OPTIMISE THE ACTUAL BOTTLENECK
- 03MEASURE BEFORE AND AFTER
- 04GUARD THE GAIN IN CI
Each stage produces something checkable. The full process, with what every stage produces across all work, lives on the process page. Every engagement starts the same way: describe the problem, the data, and the evidence that would count as success.