Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: TONGARI J (tongari95_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-09 12:19:27
2015-08-09 23:38 GMT+08:00 VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira <
> 2015-08-07 15:41 GMT-03:00 VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira <
> > 2015-08-07 15:24 GMT-03:00 Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]>:
> >> Do you have any preliminary
> >> benchmarks that you could share during the review period?
> >> Perhaps to:
> >> - cpp-netlib
> >> - poco
> >> - casablanca
> >> - proxygen
> > I could provide a sloopy benchmark (just static hello world) during this
> > weekend
> Application: get the host header, get the request uri, concatenate both and
> send as reply.
> Tested using weighttp -n 20000 -c 1000 -k http://localhost:8080/
> You can see that performance of Boost.Http versus Pion was roughly the
> same, but Boost.Http created no extra threads. If I used one extra thread,
> I think I could see a speedup. Also, notice that the pion example didn't
> log any output to the standard output, while the Boost.Http is printing
> everything that happens.
Why spawning a coroutine at L200 while you don't actually need it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk