3 ms·
uWS certainly reduces the overhead to a minimum, saving lots of memory that can be used to scale up and saving CPU left to your app's code. I wrote this article
by diegorbaquero 10y ago
uWS certainly reduces the overhead to a minimum, saving lots of memory that can be used to scale up and saving CPU left to your app's code. I wrote this article a few months ago when I switched to uws in the WebTorrent tracker. https://hackernoon.com/%C2%B5ws-as-your-next-websocket-library-d34209686357?source=linkShare-a1d0f3f9aca2-1486218881 https://hackernoon.com/%C2%B5ws-as-your-next-websocket-libra...
- lpinca 10y agoDid you ever try to disable permessage-deflate with ws? It will never be as lightweight as uws because ws is built on top of `net.Socket` but I think you hit this ws issue https://github.com/websockets/ws/issues/804 https://github.com/websockets/ws/issues/804 in the WebTorrent tracker. I think ws will use 3/4 times more memory than uws with permessage-deflate disabled which is a lot, but far different from 47 times as advertised.