Re: [dev] [quark] Current performance and ideas

From: Dimitris Papastamos <dp_AT_spl9.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:14:55 +0100

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:57:50AM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:35:07 +0100
> Dimitris Papastamos <dp_AT_spl9.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Dimitris,
>
> thanks for the patches you sent in earlier!
>
> > Obviously these numbers do not mean anything unless compared to
> > some other http server implementation.
> >
> > From some quick testing that me and Hiltjo did yesterday, we found
> > that nginx is twice as fast. That's ok, quark has no optimizations in
> > place and can easily serve a few thousands of clients with static
> > content.
> >
> > Quark uses fork() internally to handle the clients. I think that's a
> > bless in disguise. Any other technique (select, poll, epoll, etc.) will
> > require some small finite state machine to keep track of the connections,
> > recycle the appropriate file descriptors etc. More specific
> > interfaces like sendfile(), epoll() etc. are also going to cause problems
> > with portability.
>
> We gotta relect on that one.
> Compared to fork(), poll()/epoll() are superior and should provide
> better throughput.

epoll() is Linux specific though, so I'd avoid it as much as possible.
Received on Thu Aug 14 2014 - 11:14:55 CEST