We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
用于压测的echo server代码在这里: server
压测客户端100个连接、payload 64,代码在这:client
跟其他几个库相比,都是append一个新的buffer用于写,其他框架也可以直接写读到的buffer、但也都用了append的新buffer回写,所以这应该不影响各个框架性能对比
不知道现在这个echo server代码正确了没,用这个代码测,100连接、1k payload,吞吐量只有 gnet 的一半左右,甚至比 easygo还慢一些。。
如果方便,请提供下你们的benchmark代码我重新跑下看看
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
其他网络库使用相同的环境、 相同的虚拟机、相同的client压测
Sorry, something went wrong.
直接这样用读到的buffer回写,吞吐量可能比easygo强一点,比gnet还是低很多,而且还是吃内存,压测30s,内存RES随便2、3G
reader := connection.Reader() buf, err := reader.Next(reader.Len()) if err != nil { return err } n, err := connection.Write(buf)
压测代码会在后续更新,有兴趣可以加入用户群一起讨论 https://github.com/cloudwego/kitex#%E8%81%94%E7%B3%BB%E6%88%91%E4%BB%AC
No branches or pull requests
用于压测的echo server代码在这里: server
压测客户端100个连接、payload 64,代码在这:client
跟其他几个库相比,都是append一个新的buffer用于写,其他框架也可以直接写读到的buffer、但也都用了append的新buffer回写,所以这应该不影响各个框架性能对比
不知道现在这个echo server代码正确了没,用这个代码测,100连接、1k payload,吞吐量只有 gnet 的一半左右,甚至比 easygo还慢一些。。
如果方便,请提供下你们的benchmark代码我重新跑下看看
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: