2019-01-10 23:01:12 +01:00
|
|
|
# 🌊🌊🌊 Hochwasser 🌊🤽🌊
|
|
|
|
|
Highly efficient client for [Pixelflut]:
|
|
|
|
|
Faster than [sturmflut]!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can currently only send a single picture though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[pixelflut]: https://cccgoe.de/wiki/Pixelflut
|
|
|
|
|
[sturmflut]: https://github.com/TobleMiner/sturmflut
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## benchmark
|
|
|
|
|
The following benchmark was run on a max-spec X280 against version [d4c574b].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I could not figure out what the performance bottleneck is, but it is not CPU limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reproduce, run the following commands in separate shells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
|
iperf -s -p 1337
|
|
|
|
|
go run main.go -image benchmark/test.png -connection 10
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 Gbps on average! 🌊🌊🌊
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[sturmflut] (`./sturmflut 127.0.0.1:1337 benchmark/test.png -t 10`, version `8ec6ee9`) managed to get 48 Gpbs throughput on this system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Hint: Benchmarking throughput against the [pixelnuke][pixelflut_gh] is pointless,
|
|
|
|
|
as performance is then CPU-limited to ~1 Gbps by the server.
|
|
|
|
|
Using [iperf] removes the server limitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[d4c574b]: https://github.com/SpeckiJ/Hochwasser/commit/d4c574be103a7bad69349f29402694f51058184c
|
|
|
|
|
[iperf]: https://iperf.fr/
|
