3 ms·
... that the Go server had a memory footprint of only about 10 MB vs. Scala’s nearly 200 MB. Priceless! 200Mb for such a crappy server with only hundred connec
by dschiptsov 13y ago
... that the Go server had a memory footprint of only about 10 MB vs. Scala’s nearly 200 MB. Priceless!
200Mb for such a crappy server with only hundred connections.
So, it is not about whose wrapper around epoll is thinner, but about how the data are represented and copied.
- ratherbefuddled 13y agoYou can't really come to a conclusion since no information is given about the configuration of the JVM. Most likely the minimum heap size was unset which often means it will default to 1/64 of the total system memory.
- dschiptsov 13y agoI have my conclusions for quite long time.)
- coldtea 13y ago>200Mb for such a crappy server with only hundred connections. Yes, and almost a megabyte of disk space for a "hello world" program. C++ is so inefficient, right? That's not the way you judge the performance of a program and/or it's memory use -- and neither is comparing the 200MB of the JVM with the 10MB of Go here...
- dschiptsov 13y agoNo, it is almost 2Mb per connection. Why so-called performance of a wrapper around OS syscalls is more important than resource costs of having a pending connection?)