3 ms·
Since it is a web server we are talking about here, let's assume it is the backend space :) I guess the answer is obvious: it is nice, but might not worth the
by eva1984 11y ago
Since it is a web server we are talking about here, let's assume it is the backend space :)
I guess the answer is obvious: it is nice, but might not worth the effort. 1.2 million requests/s is pretty good, but in reality, you probably would still need 2-3 other hosts as a failsafe backups, let alone there are other factors, like memory constraint, in which case, less optimized solution might be just acceptable because it is sufficient. So under common usage cases, the need for scalability outweighs the urge to squash the maximum performance from a single machine.
- kasey_junk 11y agoJust to be clear kestrel benchmarks at 1.2 million requests per second. You'd need 10 of your servers to match 1 of theirs. That kind of scalability difference does still matter.
- eva1984 11y agoThanks for pointing that out. It did seem like that could make a difference by this metric alone in some scenario.