ASGI, SSGI, Falcon and Socketify.py

[cirospaciari]

@vytas7 days ago (or week almost an month), said that will be really great if socketify.py could power Falcon, i promise some preliminary version until end of the month (november).
I just implemented an pure python wrapper (not the best choice for performance but is the start) to see if i can give more performance in WebSockets

This is the results before a lot of things are fixed on socketify.py, now it can reach over 1.2 million message per second.

I added in https://github.com/cirospaciari/falcon an extension for websockets and ASGI, to add pub/sub to Falcon. The results are really good! With pub/sub we can reach 200k messages per second now with falcon, and without pub/sub we can reach 100k messages per second.

Here is an sample code for subscribe/subscribe and publish with falcon using topics.

I will compare it with Django channels soon.

ASGI added a lot of overhead to socketify.py for HTTP and WebSockets, but pub/sub do most of the work inside native world that's why is so fast. I will write an spec called SSGI (Socketify Server Gateway Interface) to power Websockets and HTTP, will accept async and sync code (mixed) you can use whatever you want, when you need to give the best performance out of it. And to remove more overhead of course, i will use ASGI falcon implementation as base and test case.

I will create an new branch, and will update this discussion and gitter, if you have any ideas or comments please let me know, i will open an PR to Falcon with pub/sub extension after documenting ASGI in socketify.py.

[cirospaciari]

Updated TechEmPower using plaintext to see the overhead of Falcon and ASGI/WSGi it self over socketify.py

Framework/lib	Config	Requests/second
socketify.py	PyPy3	1192964.88
fiber	golang	1139500.68
socketify.py	Python3	582385.94
socketify.py	WSGI PyPy3	513008.76
falcon	socketify.py WSGI PyPy3	350167.20
socketify.py	ASGI PyPy3	315884.03
falcon	socketify.py ASGI PyPy3	246004.56
socketify.py	WSGI Python3	244237.57
Flask	Socketify.py WSGI PyPy3	213692.14
emmett	Socketify.py ASGI PyPy3	190399.03
granian	RSGI Python3	154675.38
falcon	Meinheld Python3	146120.10
falcon	socketify.py WSGI Python3	145300.24
socketify.py	ASGI Python3	129089.55
Django	Socketify.py WSGI PyPy3	91594.86
falcon	socketify.py ASGI Python3	88489.30
uvicorn	Python3	74262.67
emmett	Socketify.py ASGI Python3	74188.61
granian	ASGI Python3	59670.76
emmett	Emmett ASGI Python3	48327.88
Flask	Socketify.py WSGI Python3	33654.23
Django	Socketify.py WSGI Python3	27053.82
Django	Meinheld WSGI Python3	20474.19
Flask	Meinheld WSGI Python3	3631.97

Updated websockets benchmark (the same used by bun.sh)

Framework/lib	Messages/second	config
socketify.py	1228800
socketify.py-asgi	1228800
falcon+socketify.py-asgi	1228800	enable_buffered_receiver False
bun.sh	847922
falcon+socketify.py-asgi	451536	enable_buffered_receiver True
socketify.py-asgi	258379	enable_buffered_receiver True, no pub/sub
falcon+socketify.py-asgi	238424	enable_buffered_receiver True, no pub/sub
node.js	192351
falcon + uvicorn pypy3	54584
uvicorn	38352
falcon + uvicorn python3	27648

With pub/sub versions using PyPy and Python3 performs the same because of C++ optimizations and low overhead, so when using socketify.py/socketify.py-asgi or falcon+socketify.py-asgi the results will be the same so was omitted. Without pub/sub 80~100k req/s of performance hit.

Source for Falcon with pub/sub support and enable_buffered_receiver option here: https://github.com/cirospaciari/falcon/tree/master