Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by makkesk8 2670 days ago
Even if connections per second can be a magnitude or two lower than requests per second this result is still quite off by today's alternative.

14 core machine comparing .net core with other top webservers: https://www.ageofascent.com/2019/02/04/asp-net-core-saturati...

3 comments

A lot of folks are failing to read the article. They're intentionally holding each connection open for 1 whole second. This is a whole different ballgame than benchmarks where each connection is allowed to terminate as rapidly as it can send back a plain text response.
Good point. At first glance, holding the connection open for one second seemed a bit meaningless if they're touting connections/sec.

But since they are benchmarking Elixir, there is some amount of overhead involved in that framework's management of connections and requests. If I knew Erlang/Elixir, that would be a fascinating thing to explore.

Edit: I'm assuming the saturated CPU comes from Elixir and not the OS. It would be strange for 100k/sec to saturate the TCP stack with 36 cores.

Totally missed that. In that case it does make sense.
That's measuring reqs/s, and as you said, if conns/s is an order of magnitude or two less, that's 700k, or 70k conns/s, which is right around what this post finds.
That's really exciting! As someone who dropped out of .NET entirely around the time ASP.Net MVC2 came out, where do you recommend I start looking into aspnet core / .net core? Do you still write core .net in visual studio? or can you use vscode?