Re: [Capy/Corosio review] Benchmark results

> > The thread and file-descriptor usage by each client was
> >
> >     Client                         threads      fd-nr
> >     --------------------------------------------------
> >     boost-redis-corosio         3             7
> >     boost-redis-asio-co         2             7
> >     boost-redis-asio-cb         2             7
> >     redis-rs                            1           10
> >     go-redis                         24       1006
>
> I wonder why Corosio has one more thread than the ASIO variants. Does
> Corosio start an internal thread for some purpose? I'm assuming, the
> client code was equivalent for each library, or at least for the
> different variants of Boost.Redis.
>
> Also, worth noting that, according to the GitHub page you referenced,
> the number of context switches were the highest for Corosio, and the
> amount of system time was a bit higher than ASIO. This may be related to
> the additional thread being used.

The extra thread is allocated by the timer service in Capy, underlying
capy::delay() and capy::timeout(). Capy doesn't know about Corosio, so
I don't think it can use io_context threads to run timers.
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: