dht VS aquatic

I'm the author of https://github.com/anacrolix/torrent (started in 2013) and https://github.com/anacrolix/dht (started in 2015). I have a DHT indexer implementation I developed in 2021. It's currently closed source but available for use as part of https://www.coveapp.info/. I have found that after several hours the search is excellent and stays up to date with ease.

Implements the underlying server part that DHT does, plus is used by other projects to implement indexing.

How does Bitmagnet compare to Aquatic? https://github.com/greatest-ape/aquatic

I have a question on UnsafeCell usage that popped up while implementing io_uring support for aquatic_udp. I find the docs slightly confusing (in particular the part that I've marked in bold):

I've done a new round of benchmarking of open UDP BitTorrent tracker implementations. Results were great for aquatic_udp, achieving double the throughput of opentracker when running on 8 CPU cores:

If you run your tracker on Linux and an info hash whitelist approach would work for your use case, it might be worthwhile having a look at aquatic_ws [0]. It relies on tungstenite [1] for websockets and achieves around 20x the throughput of the reference implementation when running with four threads.

[0] https://github.com/greatest-ape/aquatic

aquatic, a multithreaded BitTorrent tracker with world-leading performance

But aquatic_udp doesn't use glommio.. https://github.com/greatest-ape/aquatic/pull/29

aquatic is a Apache 2.0-licensed BitTorrent tracker written in Rust that I have developed over the last couple of years. It focuses on correctness, stability and high performance.

The udp request parsing code seems to have been copied from aquatic. Please note that the Apache 2.0 license requires attribution.