You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
and with more realistic test option I've found on README oha http://172.17.0.2:3000 -j --no-tui -z 10s -c 10 --latency-correction --disable-keepalive
I have
Hi, I think it's simply because wrk is more optimized than oha.
Put simply, Ideally, we can distribute all works to each thread statically for this kind a application.
But our runtime tokio distributes works dynamically using work-stealing, which involves some overheads for locking things.
The overhead is apparent in extreme conditions that benchmark the fast server on localhost.
You can check this hypothesis by using strace. strace (-f) on wrk is very clean while oha's strace has many futex related things.
But we can implement real-time tui easily by using tokio framework. it is a good point.
Hi @hatoo,
I'm considering using
oha
for https://github.com/the-benchmarker/web-frameworks, but I have some questions.Actually, we are using
wrk
. Using https://github.com/the-benchmarker/web-frameworks/blob/master/rust/actix/src/main.rs, I have some results withwrk
and with
oha http://172.17.0.2:3000 -j --no-tui -z 10s -c 10
(which is the same options), I haveand with more realistic test option I've found on README
oha http://172.17.0.2:3000 -j --no-tui -z 10s -c 10 --latency-correction --disable-keepalive
I have
How can you explain to variations beetween
wrk
andoha
?Regards,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: