metrics VS tokio

It's worth keeping an eye on Diesel's metrics suite (https://github.com/diesel-rs/metrics) as well; I found and fixed some suboptimal buffering that was affecting performance.

See here for some numbers. The relevant code lives inside the diesel github repository. Please also keep in mind that these are just numbers and you should run those these on your own and also run tests with your actual work load.

Performance is worse than in comparable frameworks

For the database part you might want to checkout a crate that's not based on sqlx as sqlx is known for providing non-optimal performance for the sqlite backend. rusqlite or diesel perform much better for this use case.

No it will likely not be less performant. See these numbers for some benchmark results for numbers. (As always with benchmarks: Please don't trust my numbers. To be sure you need to do your own benchmarks with your own use-case)

See here for some benchmark results. The benchmarks itself are in the diesel repository. Otherwise I believe there are numbers in the techempower benchmarks as well, although that includes other factors .

I'm developing a Rust web server backend in Axum that uses Postgres and performance will be pretty important since I plan to run it on one server for as long as possible. It seems like the postgres crate is about 2x faster than sqlx, and the postgres repository seems pretty active still.

Congratulations to the release. I know all of this is hard work. I would like to invite you to submit a ormlite implementation to the diesel benchmark collection. As soon as that's merged you will get regular reports here. The relevant code is here in the diesel repository.

In that case you may be interested in the metrics for different database libraries. diesel is doing rather well at the moment. sqlx is in the middle of a large rewrite that should improve performance, so we'll see how it compares after that

See here for some benchmark results for the diesel repository. Please keep in mind that as always with benchmarks, these numbers are not necessarily true for your usecase. Be sure to checkout at least the benchmark code and draw your own conclusions from there.

Being able to control nondeterminism is particularly useful for testing and debugging. This allows creating reproducible test environments, as well as discrete-event simulation for faster-than-real-time simulation of time delays. For example, Cardano uses a simulation environment for the IO monad that closely follows core Haskell packages; Sui has a simulator based on madsim that provides an API-compatible replacement for the Tokio runtime and intercepts various POSIX API calls in order to enforce determinism. Both allow running the same code in production as in the simulator for testing.

tokio / hyper / toml / serde / serde_json / json5 / console

tokio - An asynchronous runtime for Rust

3. Tokio

The AWS SDK makes use of the async capabilities in the Tokio library. So when you see async in front of a fn that function is capable of executing asynchronously.

Petar is also looking at implementing concurrency the way it is in Go to have a fully functional virtual machine as it is in the spec. This would likely attract more external contributors to developing the VM. One advantage of Rust is that, with the concurrency model, there is already an extensive library called Tokio which he can use. Petar stresses that this isn’t easy, but he believes it’s achievable, at least as a research topic around determinism and concurrency.

Another thing to point out is that async is a thing in Rust. I'm not going to begin to dive into this paradigm in this article, but know it's handled by the awesome Tokio framework.

So I started by using Tokio, a popular async runtime. The docs and samples helped me get a simple outbound TCP connection working. The Rust async book also had a lot of good explanations, both practical and digging into the details of what a runtime does.

Regarding the quote:

> The Original Sin of Rust async programming is making it multi-threaded by default. If premature optimization is the root of all evil, this is the mother of all premature optimizations, and it curses all your code with the unholy Send + 'static, or worse yet Send + Sync + 'static, which just kills all the joy of actually writing Rust.

Agree about the melodramatic tone. I also don't think removing the Send + Sync really makes that big a difference. It's the 'static that bothers me the most. I want scoped concurrency. Something like <https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio/issues/2596>.

Another thing I really hate about Rust async right now is the poor instrumentation. I'm having a production problem at work right now in which some tasks just get stuck. I wish I could do the equivalent of `gdb; thread apply all bt`. Looking forward to <https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio/issues/5638> landing at least. It exists right now but is experimental and in my experience sometimes panics. I'm actually writing a PR today to at least use the experimental version on SIGTERM to see what's going on, on the theory that if it crashes oh well, we're shutting down anyway.

Neither of these complaints would be addressed by taking away work stealing. In fact, I could keep doing down my list, and taking away work stealing wouldn't really help with much of anything.

The PHP <-> Rust bindings are provided by https://github.com/Nicelocal/ext-php-rs/ (our fork of https://github.com/davidcole1340/ext-php-rs with a bunch of UX improvements :).

php-tokio's integrates the https://revolt.run event loop with the https://tokio.rs event loop; async functionality is provided by the two event loops, in combination with PHP fibers through revolt's suspension API (I could've directly used the PHP Fiber API to provide coroutine suspension, but it was a tad easier with revolt's suspension API (https://revolt.run/fibers), since it also handles the base case of suspension in the main fiber).