• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14 months ago

    I’ve implemented it myself, down to the encoding and buffer management.

    It’s a really simple back and forth first, but after that it’s just dumping arbitrary binary data through the socket

    • @kolorafa
      link
      14 months ago

      Yes, but with WebSocket you need to have a server and that will consume some additional CPU.

      Without it you only need some random CDN to do the download test.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        This server is just a piece of software that accepts and responds to TCP sockets. It could be anything, but you’re not consuming more CPU power by doing less work.

        The http protocol requires you prepend every message with a bunch of headers and for them to have a static size. (tho plenty of apps allow you to bend the rules quite a bit)

        After switching to a websocket, none of that applies. You can just dump data straight into the TCP socket. Or TLS stream that goes into the TCP socket. But that would be same for the http requests

        • @kolorafa
          link
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          On the server side to send you data, using any web server with mmap support will probably be less CPU intensive than app that handles websocket, but yes, the details matter as when reading a lot of small files vs websocket, then websocket could be better for CPU usage especially when you could generate data.

          But once again using plain old http allow you to use the speestest software against any CDN very easy IMO.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Adding headers and some other minor requirements is slower than not. That’s really the difference, it’s not complicated.