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 
with "places".

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.

All right.

> 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 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to