On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 8:50:27 AM UTC+3, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> (tcp-abandon-port r)
> (tcp-abandon-port w)
You're right. This worked for "places". I've rerun "single" and "many" along
results/custom-many.txt:Requests per second: 6720.43 [#/sec] (mean)
results/custom-places.txt:Requests per second: 7095.99 [#/sec] (mean)
results/custom-single.txt:Requests per second: 7609.11 [#/sec] (mean)
As for "many-places", I was mistaken about it running out of file descriptors.
I accidentally tested "places" in its stead. As-is
"many-places" does not send anything to incoming connections and never closes
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:01:14 AM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Yes, that's good.
> It is really surprising to me that the many version doesn't perform
> better, because I assumed that there would be IO delays on one
> connection and you wouldn't want to stall others while waiting to
> read/write it. Presumably this is a bit of an artifact of the
> benchmarking happening on localhost?
I was wondering about the reason myself. To tease it out, I'll try a few
variations on the benchmark later.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.