为什么 fasthttp 比 net/http 快？
Why is fasthttp faster than net/http?
基于 fasthttp 的服务器比 net/http 快 10 倍。
哪些实施细节使 fasthttp 如此之快？此外，它如何比 net/http 更好地管理传入请求？
文章“http implementation fasthttp in golang" from husobee提到：
Well, this is a much better implementation for several reasons:
- The worker pool model is a zero allocation model, as the workers are already initialized and are ready to serve, whereas in the stdlib implementation the
go c.serve() has to allocate memory for the goroutine.
- The worker pool model is easier to tune, as you can increase/decrease the buffer size of the number of work units you are able to accept, versus the fire and and forget model in the stdlib
- The worker pool model allows for handlers to be more connected with the server through channel communications, if the server needs to shutdown for example, it would be able to more easily communicate with the workers than in the stdlib implementation
- The handler function definition signature is better, as it takes in only a context which includes both the request and writer needed by the handler. this is HUGELY better than the standard library, as all you get from the stdlib is a request and response writer… The work in go1.7 to include context within the request is pretty much a hack to give people what they really want (context) without breaking anyone.
Overall it is just better to write a server with a worker pool model for serving requests, as opposed to just spawning a “thread” per request, with no way of throttling out of the box.
基于 fasthttp 的服务器比 net/http 快 10 倍。
哪些实施细节使 fasthttp 如此之快？此外，它如何比 net/http 更好地管理传入请求？
文章“http implementation fasthttp in golang" from husobee提到：
Well, this is a much better implementation for several reasons:
- The worker pool model is a zero allocation model, as the workers are already initialized and are ready to serve, whereas in the stdlib implementation the
go c.serve()has to allocate memory for the goroutine.- The worker pool model is easier to tune, as you can increase/decrease the buffer size of the number of work units you are able to accept, versus the fire and and forget model in the stdlib
- The worker pool model allows for handlers to be more connected with the server through channel communications, if the server needs to shutdown for example, it would be able to more easily communicate with the workers than in the stdlib implementation
- The handler function definition signature is better, as it takes in only a context which includes both the request and writer needed by the handler. this is HUGELY better than the standard library, as all you get from the stdlib is a request and response writer… The work in go1.7 to include context within the request is pretty much a hack to give people what they really want (context) without breaking anyone.
Overall it is just better to write a server with a worker pool model for serving requests, as opposed to just spawning a “thread” per request, with no way of throttling out of the box.