5 ms·

1.x engine is up to 5x faster

47 points by weatherlight 5y ago

sph 5y ago
Those are very nice figures compared to cowboy which is already plenty fast than similar web servers in other languages. Hope it becomes a valid alternative for Phoenix when this stabilises a little more.
mcmatterson 5y ago
Author here. AMA!
- weatherlight 5y ago
  Really nice work btw!
- fouc 5y ago
  Why is Bandit so much more performant than Cowboy? Also why does bandit have a peak around the 32 concurrent connections? Would idiomatic OTP design patterns normally exhibit that kind of behavior?
  - mcmatterson 5y ago
    Fundamentally, Bandit just does a lot less work than Cowboy does. Particularly with HTTP/1 requests, Bandit uses a single process per connection in contrast with Cowboy's 2 per connection. This allows Bandit's handler code to be very 'linear' and free of coordination complexity; for the most part, an HTTP/1 connection will go from initial connection to Plug call and back again without having to leave the process at all. More broadly, there's just less functionality in Bandit (by design; it's a very focused library that doesn't need to do a bunch of the stuff that Cowboy does). All that stuff ends up adding up when you're doing it 100k a second. This correlates with Bandit's relative numbers being better in HTTP/1 (up to 5x faster than Cowboy) than they are in HTTP/2 (a paltry 2.3x faster than Cowboy). In terms of the 32 concurrent connections peak, my hunch here is that it's due to the server the test is running on being a 32 core VM (see https://github.com/mtrudel/network_benchmark https://github.com/mtrudel/network_benchmark for details of the benchmarking process). Truthfully I'm no expert with benchmarking & this may not hold a lot of truth; at the end of the day the test is pretty apples to apples so I think it has comparative merit, but the absolute numbers are a bit murkier to me.
knowmad 5y ago
How does bandit differ from finch and mint?
- mcmatterson 5y ago
  Bandit is an HTTP server, not a client. It performs the same job in the stack as Cowboy does currently (just up to 5x faster as this post's title alludes to). The Bandit project shares a small amount of code with the Mint project (Andrea & Eric were kind enough to factor out their HTTP/2 header compression library for use in Bandit), but this is mostly due to HTTP being a largely symmetric protocol (ie: there is a lot of functionality used equally by both clients and servers).

47 points by weatherlight 5y ago

sph 5y ago

Those are very nice figures compared to cowboy which is already plenty fast than similar web servers in other languages. Hope it becomes a valid alternative for Phoenix when this stabilises a little more.

mcmatterson 5y ago

Author here. AMA!

weatherlight 5y ago
Really nice work btw!
fouc 5y ago
Why is Bandit so much more performant than Cowboy? Also why does bandit have a peak around the 32 concurrent connections? Would idiomatic OTP design patterns normally exhibit that kind of behavior?
- mcmatterson 5y ago
  Fundamentally, Bandit just does a lot less work than Cowboy does. Particularly with HTTP/1 requests, Bandit uses a single process per connection in contrast with Cowboy's 2 per connection. This allows Bandit's handler code to be very 'linear' and free of coordination complexity; for the most part, an HTTP/1 connection will go from initial connection to Plug call and back again without having to leave the process at all. More broadly, there's just less functionality in Bandit (by design; it's a very focused library that doesn't need to do a bunch of the stuff that Cowboy does). All that stuff ends up adding up when you're doing it 100k a second. This correlates with Bandit's relative numbers being better in HTTP/1 (up to 5x faster than Cowboy) than they are in HTTP/2 (a paltry 2.3x faster than Cowboy). In terms of the 32 concurrent connections peak, my hunch here is that it's due to the server the test is running on being a 32 core VM (see https://github.com/mtrudel/network_benchmark https://github.com/mtrudel/network_benchmark for details of the benchmarking process). Truthfully I'm no expert with benchmarking & this may not hold a lot of truth; at the end of the day the test is pretty apples to apples so I think it has comparative merit, but the absolute numbers are a bit murkier to me.

knowmad 5y ago

How does bandit differ from finch and mint?

mcmatterson 5y ago
Bandit is an HTTP server, not a client. It performs the same job in the stack as Cowboy does currently (just up to 5x faster as this post's title alludes to). The Bandit project shares a small amount of code with the Mint project (Andrea & Eric were kind enough to factor out their HTTP/2 header compression library for use in Bandit), but this is mostly due to HTTP being a largely symmetric protocol (ie: there is a lot of functionality used equally by both clients and servers).