Hacker News Reader

Comment by FooBarWidget | Hacker News Reader

That makes me all the more curious: why is it faster? I cannot imagine Node doing something obviously wrong that would explain the difference. Evented I/O is pretty well understood, I/O loops aren't that hard and it's all just accept()/read()/write()/close() at the end of the day. Where does the 5x difference come from?

View on HN

It is plausible though. node.js have its fair share of "slowness" when compared to other async frameworks for the basic "Hello World" (shameless plug): http://www.saltwaterc.eu/async-frameworks-hello-world-showdo...

vert.x used the JavaScript bindings via Mozilla Rhino. I guess that a pure Java test could be a little bit faster than that.

Because it caches (http://gwan.com/faq#cache) response under high concurrencies. Try to benchmark this code:

  #include "gwan.h" // G-WAN exported functions
  int count=0;
  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
  {
   if (!count) printf("New Counter!\n");
   xbuf_xcat(get_reply(argv), "Hello World %d",count++);
   return 200; // return an HTTP code (200:'OK')
  }

Wow, I didn't know that. I certainly did not expect to find that information in the FAQ. In fact this is the first time I've heard of a web server doing that.

So was the benchmark the author posted with microcaching turned on? While it's a legit way to reduce the load in real-world situations, it feels a little like cheating when used in a benchmark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com