… | |
… | |
66 | |
66 | |
67 | Of course, if you want lots of policy (this can arguably be somewhat |
67 | Of course, if you want lots of policy (this can arguably be somewhat |
68 | useful) and you want to force your users to use the one and only event |
68 | useful) and you want to force your users to use the one and only event |
69 | model, you should I<not> use this module. |
69 | model, you should I<not> use this module. |
70 | |
70 | |
|
|
71 | #TODO# |
|
|
72 | |
|
|
73 | Net::IRC3 |
|
|
74 | AnyEvent::HTTPD |
|
|
75 | AnyEvent::DNS |
|
|
76 | IO::AnyEvent |
|
|
77 | Net::FPing |
|
|
78 | Net::XMPP2 |
|
|
79 | Coro |
|
|
80 | |
|
|
81 | AnyEvent::IRC |
|
|
82 | AnyEvent::HTTPD |
|
|
83 | AnyEvent::DNS |
|
|
84 | AnyEvent::Handle |
|
|
85 | AnyEvent::Socket |
|
|
86 | AnyEvent::FPing |
|
|
87 | AnyEvent::XMPP |
|
|
88 | AnyEvent::SNMP |
|
|
89 | Coro |
71 | |
90 | |
72 | =head1 DESCRIPTION |
91 | =head1 DESCRIPTION |
73 | |
92 | |
74 | L<AnyEvent> provides an identical interface to multiple event loops. This |
93 | L<AnyEvent> provides an identical interface to multiple event loops. This |
75 | allows module authors to utilise an event loop without forcing module |
94 | allows module authors to utilise an event loop without forcing module |
… | |
… | |
457 | might chose the wrong one unless you load the correct one yourself. |
476 | might chose the wrong one unless you load the correct one yourself. |
458 | |
477 | |
459 | You can chose to use a rather inefficient pure-perl implementation by |
478 | You can chose to use a rather inefficient pure-perl implementation by |
460 | loading the C<AnyEvent::Impl::Perl> module, which gives you similar |
479 | loading the C<AnyEvent::Impl::Perl> module, which gives you similar |
461 | behaviour everywhere, but letting AnyEvent chose is generally better. |
480 | behaviour everywhere, but letting AnyEvent chose is generally better. |
|
|
481 | |
|
|
482 | =head1 OTHER MODULES |
|
|
483 | |
|
|
484 | L<AnyEvent> itself comes with useful utility modules: |
|
|
485 | |
|
|
486 | To make it easier to do non-blocking IO the modules L<AnyEvent::Handle> |
|
|
487 | and L<AnyEvent::Socket> are provided. L<AnyEvent::Handle> provides |
|
|
488 | read and write buffers and manages watchers for reads and writes. |
|
|
489 | L<AnyEvent::Socket> provides means to do non-blocking connects. |
|
|
490 | |
|
|
491 | Aside from those there are these modules that support AnyEvent (and use it |
|
|
492 | for non-blocking IO): |
|
|
493 | |
|
|
494 | =over 4 |
|
|
495 | |
|
|
496 | =item L<AnyEvent::FastPing> |
|
|
497 | |
|
|
498 | =item L<Net::IRC3> |
|
|
499 | |
|
|
500 | =item L<Net::XMPP2> |
|
|
501 | |
|
|
502 | =back |
462 | |
503 | |
463 | =cut |
504 | =cut |
464 | |
505 | |
465 | package AnyEvent; |
506 | package AnyEvent; |
466 | |
507 | |
… | |
… | |
944 | EV/EV 400000 244 0.56 0.46 0.31 EV native interface |
985 | EV/EV 400000 244 0.56 0.46 0.31 EV native interface |
945 | EV/Any 100000 244 2.50 0.46 0.29 EV + AnyEvent watchers |
986 | EV/Any 100000 244 2.50 0.46 0.29 EV + AnyEvent watchers |
946 | CoroEV/Any 100000 244 2.49 0.44 0.29 coroutines + Coro::Signal |
987 | CoroEV/Any 100000 244 2.49 0.44 0.29 coroutines + Coro::Signal |
947 | Perl/Any 100000 513 4.92 0.87 1.12 pure perl implementation |
988 | Perl/Any 100000 513 4.92 0.87 1.12 pure perl implementation |
948 | Event/Event 16000 516 31.88 31.30 0.85 Event native interface |
989 | Event/Event 16000 516 31.88 31.30 0.85 Event native interface |
949 | Event/Any 16000 936 39.17 33.63 1.43 Event + AnyEvent watchers |
990 | Event/Any 16000 590 35.75 31.42 1.08 Event + AnyEvent watchers |
950 | Glib/Any 16000 1357 98.22 12.41 54.00 quadratic behaviour |
991 | Glib/Any 16000 1357 98.22 12.41 54.00 quadratic behaviour |
951 | Tk/Any 2000 1860 26.97 67.98 14.00 SEGV with >> 2000 watchers |
992 | Tk/Any 2000 1860 26.97 67.98 14.00 SEGV with >> 2000 watchers |
952 | POE/Event 2000 6644 108.64 736.02 14.73 via POE::Loop::Event |
993 | POE/Event 2000 6644 108.64 736.02 14.73 via POE::Loop::Event |
953 | POE/Select 2000 6343 94.13 809.12 565.96 via POE::Loop::Select |
994 | POE/Select 2000 6343 94.13 809.12 565.96 via POE::Loop::Select |
954 | |
995 | |
… | |
… | |
958 | well. For example, a select-based event loop (such as the pure perl one) |
999 | well. For example, a select-based event loop (such as the pure perl one) |
959 | can never compete with an event loop that uses epoll when the number of |
1000 | can never compete with an event loop that uses epoll when the number of |
960 | file descriptors grows high. In this benchmark, all events become ready at |
1001 | file descriptors grows high. In this benchmark, all events become ready at |
961 | the same time, so select/poll-based implementations get an unnatural speed |
1002 | the same time, so select/poll-based implementations get an unnatural speed |
962 | boost. |
1003 | boost. |
|
|
1004 | |
|
|
1005 | Also, note that the number of watchers usually has a nonlinear effect on |
|
|
1006 | overall speed, that is, creating twice as many watchers doesn't take twice |
|
|
1007 | the time - usually it takes longer. This puts event loops tested with a |
|
|
1008 | higher number of watchers at a disadvantage. |
|
|
1009 | |
|
|
1010 | To put the range of results into perspective, consider that on the |
|
|
1011 | benchmark machine, handling an event takes roughly 1600 CPU cycles with |
|
|
1012 | EV, 3100 CPU cycles with AnyEvent's pure perl loop and almost 3000000 CPU |
|
|
1013 | cycles with POE. |
963 | |
1014 | |
964 | C<EV> is the sole leader regarding speed and memory use, which are both |
1015 | C<EV> is the sole leader regarding speed and memory use, which are both |
965 | maximal/minimal, respectively. Even when going through AnyEvent, it uses |
1016 | maximal/minimal, respectively. Even when going through AnyEvent, it uses |
966 | far less memory than any other event loop and is still faster than Event |
1017 | far less memory than any other event loop and is still faster than Event |
967 | natively. |
1018 | natively. |
… | |
… | |
1043 | distribution. |
1094 | distribution. |
1044 | |
1095 | |
1045 | =head3 Explanation of the columns |
1096 | =head3 Explanation of the columns |
1046 | |
1097 | |
1047 | I<sockets> is the number of sockets, and twice the number of "servers" (as |
1098 | I<sockets> is the number of sockets, and twice the number of "servers" (as |
1048 | eahc server has a read and write socket end). |
1099 | each server has a read and write socket end). |
1049 | |
1100 | |
1050 | I<create> is the time it takes to create a socketpair (which is |
1101 | I<create> is the time it takes to create a socketpair (which is |
1051 | nontrivial) and two watchers: an I/O watcher and a timeout watcher. |
1102 | nontrivial) and two watchers: an I/O watcher and a timeout watcher. |
1052 | |
1103 | |
1053 | I<request>, the most important value, is the time it takes to handle a |
1104 | I<request>, the most important value, is the time it takes to handle a |
1054 | single "request", that is, reading the token from the pipe and forwarding |
1105 | single "request", that is, reading the token from the pipe and forwarding |
1055 | it to another server. This includes deleteing the old timeout and creating |
1106 | it to another server. This includes deleting the old timeout and creating |
1056 | a new one with a later timeout. |
1107 | a new one that moves the timeout into the future. |
1057 | |
1108 | |
1058 | =head3 Results |
1109 | =head3 Results |
1059 | |
1110 | |
1060 | name sockets create request |
1111 | name sockets create request |
1061 | EV 20000 69.01 11.16 |
1112 | EV 20000 69.01 11.16 |
1062 | Perl 20000 75.28 112.76 |
1113 | Perl 20000 73.32 35.87 |
1063 | Event 20000 212.62 257.32 |
1114 | Event 20000 212.62 257.32 |
1064 | Glib 20000 651.16 1896.30 |
1115 | Glib 20000 651.16 1896.30 |
1065 | POE 20000 349.67 12317.24 uses POE::Loop::Event |
1116 | POE 20000 349.67 12317.24 uses POE::Loop::Event |
1066 | |
1117 | |
1067 | =head3 Discussion |
1118 | =head3 Discussion |
… | |
… | |
1113 | |
1164 | |
1114 | =head3 Results |
1165 | =head3 Results |
1115 | |
1166 | |
1116 | name sockets create request |
1167 | name sockets create request |
1117 | EV 16 20.00 6.54 |
1168 | EV 16 20.00 6.54 |
|
|
1169 | Perl 16 25.75 12.62 |
1118 | Event 16 81.27 35.86 |
1170 | Event 16 81.27 35.86 |
1119 | Glib 16 32.63 15.48 |
1171 | Glib 16 32.63 15.48 |
1120 | Perl 16 24.62 162.37 |
|
|
1121 | POE 16 261.87 276.28 uses POE::Loop::Event |
1172 | POE 16 261.87 276.28 uses POE::Loop::Event |
1122 | |
1173 | |
1123 | =head3 Discussion |
1174 | =head3 Discussion |
1124 | |
1175 | |
1125 | The benchmark tries to test the performance of a typical small |
1176 | The benchmark tries to test the performance of a typical small |
1126 | server. While knowing how various event loops perform is interesting, keep |
1177 | server. While knowing how various event loops perform is interesting, keep |
1127 | in mind that their overhead in this case is usually not as important, due |
1178 | in mind that their overhead in this case is usually not as important, due |
1128 | to the small absolute number of watchers. |
1179 | to the small absolute number of watchers (that is, you need efficiency and |
|
|
1180 | speed most when you have lots of watchers, not when you only have a few of |
|
|
1181 | them). |
1129 | |
1182 | |
1130 | EV is again fastest. |
1183 | EV is again fastest. |
1131 | |
1184 | |
1132 | The C-based event loops Event and Glib come in second this time, as the |
1185 | The C-based event loops Event and Glib come in second this time, as the |
1133 | overhead of running an iteration is much smaller in C than in Perl (little |
1186 | overhead of running an iteration is much smaller in C than in Perl (little |
1134 | code to execute in the inner loop, and perl's function calling overhead is |
1187 | code to execute in the inner loop, and perl's function calling overhead is |
1135 | high, and updating all the data structures is costly). |
1188 | high, and updating all the data structures is costly). |
1136 | |
1189 | |
1137 | The pure perl event loop is much slower, but still competitive. |
1190 | The pure perl event loop is much slower, but still competitive. |
1138 | |
1191 | |
1139 | POE also performs much better in this case, but is is stillf ar behind the |
1192 | POE also performs much better in this case, but is is still far behind the |
1140 | others. |
1193 | others. |
1141 | |
1194 | |
1142 | =head3 Summary |
1195 | =head3 Summary |
1143 | |
1196 | |
1144 | =over 4 |
1197 | =over 4 |