eventcore vs boost.asio performance?

[zoujiaqing]

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 08:26:23 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> I'm not sure where it would be today on that list, but I got 
> pretty competitive results for local tests on Linux a few years 
> back. However, there are at least two performance related 
> issues still present:
>
> - The API uses internal allocation of memory for I/O operations 
> and per socket descriptor. This is to work around the lack of a 
> way to disable struct moves (and thus making it unsafe to store 
> any kind of pointer to stack values). The allocations are 
> pretty well optimized, but it does lead to some additional 
> memory copies that impede performance.
>
> - On both, Linux and Windows, there are new, faster I/O APIs: 
> io_uring and RIO. A PR by Tobias Pankrath 
> (https://github.com/vibe-d/eventcore/pull/175) for io_uring 
> exists, but it still needs to be finished.
>
> Another thing that needs to be tackled is better error 
> propagation. Right now, there is often just a generic "error" 
> status, without the possibility to get a more detailed error 
> code or message.
>
> By the way, although the vibe.d HTTP implementation naturally 
> adds some overhead over the raw network I/O, the vibe.d results 
> in that list, judging by their poor performance on many-core 
> machines, appear to be affected by GC runs, or possibly some 
> other lock contention, whereas the basic HTTP request handling 
> should be more or less GC-free. So those shouldn't be used for 
> comparison.

First, the io_uring is very much to look forward to! When can you 
merge this PR?

Secondly, how to optimize memory allocation and release under 
high concurrency? Nbuff is a great library, and I've used it 
before.