3 ms·
Duh, yes, of course the logic makes it much slower than copying a L1 cached static response to the client. But then that is not a use case anyone cares very muc
by revelation 9y ago
Duh, yes, of course the logic makes it much slower than copying a L1 cached static response to the client. But then that is not a use case anyone cares very much about.
The AgeOfAscent story is not a PR piece, the writer (Ben Adams) is a very active contributor to the Kestrel server behind .NET Core. If he's writing about improved performance it's probably because he wrote >1/3rd of the patches.
- endorphone 9y agoDuh, yes, of course What a weirdly trite response given that you're essentially repeating what I said. And without specifics the linked piece, and its claims about benchmarks, is utterly meaningless. "Rewrote inefficient code. Now it's faster. Story at 11!" The AgeOfAscent story is not a PR piece Humorously it was likely a "copy a L1 cached static response" type benchmark. Okay, so it wasn't PR, it was self-aggrandizement (which is effectively PR). Got it. Though in this article it was linked as a performance improvement of "switching" to .NET Core, when really it was a story of terribly inefficient .NET Core code becoming better, though again in a nutshell it is meaningless. Cool.
- flamedoge 9y agoyea that is caveat for comparing numbers in a simple http payload benchmark -- doesn't really reflect real workloads. I don't think it's meaningless that .NET got better. Perhaps more competition is better, otherwise we'd all be using Java/netty. However, I also see the repetitive work in having different stacks.