Hacker News Reader

> These benchmarks seem to only use 10 clients concurrently, max. That's ridiculously low.

I've just update the post with more details on HTTP benchmarks and attached the correct full-results file [1]. The concurrency level for HTTP benchmarks is 300, not 10.

To answer other questions, I'll have to run some benchmarks tomorrow :)

[1] http://magic.io/blog/uvloop-blazing-fast-python-networking/h...

View on HN

Cool! For the client test I'm referring to, these would be long-lived clients that stay around and just TCP ping for an echo server, rather than HTTP calls that connect/disconnect.

In my experience, PyPy+twisted is around 5-25x faster CPython/twisted, and smoked asyncio as well. Would be great to see how uvloop compares there, and of course, someday when PyPy supports Python 3.5, there's no reason it couldn't use uvloop via cffi I'd hope.

> [..] Would be great to see how uvloop compares there [..]

Yep, I'm curious to see what will happen there. Do you have any suggestions on what tool to use to generate the load?

> [..] someday when PyPy supports Python 3.5, there's no reason it couldn't use uvloop via cffi I'd hope.

We'll figure that out! ;)

I wrote a tool to evaluate memory per connection one layer up (at websocket level), using autobahn. It works in asyncio, so it should work fine with uvloop.

https://github.com/bbangert/ssl-ram-testing/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com