inet256 VS FrameworkBenchmarks

My approach to hosting with Got has been to make it easy and secure for users to host from any machine.

INET256 solves that problem nicely. If you have access to an INET256 network, then all you have to do is swap addresses and two Got instances can communicate.

https://github.com/inet256/inet256

Also, end-to-end encryption is table stakes. Any data that leaves the user needs to be encrypted in transit, and if it hangs around away from the user, at rest.

I'm working on INET256, an API for secure identity based networking. The reference implementation, mesh256 is a mesh network using a distributed routing algorithm. There is also diet256, which is a centrally coordinated network with direct connections using QUIC over The Internet.

https://github.com/inet256/inet256

https://github.com/inet256/diet256

Thanks for sharing RocketGit. This is the first time I've heard of it, and yes, it does look like a cool copyleft solution to self-hosted Git.

Another interesting option is Brendan Caroll's got[0], which allows sharing of repositories over INET256[1]. I'm sure there are other P2P approaches to Git, but this one just piqued my interest. Unfortunately it has a naming conflict with OpenBSD's Game of Trees[2].

[0] https://github.com/gotvc/got

[1] https://github.com/inet256/inet256

[2] https://gameoftrees.org/

I'm working on INET256, a 256 bit network address space for easily and securely connecting applications.

https://github.com/inet256/inet256

- The API is focused around sending and receiving messages to addresses derived from public keys.

- Each application can have its own stable address.

- Runs as a daemon process which is configured with peering information. Additional network nodes can be spawned through the API.

- Can easily support arbitrary routing algorithms through a well defined interface.

- A TUN device (similar to CJDNS or Yggdrasil) is included as a separate application. (The IP6 Portal)

https://github.com/inet256/inet256

Developers, applications, and end-users are under-served by the network layer. INET256 provides necessary features (stable addresses, encryption) to client applications, which usually have to reimplement those features themselves.

There is an interface for address discovery [1] (finding transport addresses for peers you know about) and autopeering [2] (peering with peers you didn't know about beforehand). There is an unfinished branch for LAN broadcast discovery/autopeering. Contributions are definitely welcome here.

I had played around with a STUN transport, but the easiest way to connect has been to stand up a cloud VM with a static IP.

INET256 addresses use the same public key serialization as TLS, but they intentionally avoid the rest of the certificate infrastructure complexity. They make great leaves in a web of trust. You can sign them, or stick them in DNS records. And if you don't want to deal with any of that, fine, just swap addresses and you can communicate securely.

[1] https://github.com/inet256/inet256/blob/master/pkg/discovery...

> To me, this is the future. I wish we had a set of APIs to allow connecting to a public key instead of an IP address

INET256 is working on exactly that. It's a set of APIs for connecting to addresses derived from public keys.

https://github.com/inet256/inet256

Neat. Thanks for sharing!

Interestingly, may-minihttp is faring very well in the TechEmpower benchmark [1], for whatever those benchmarks are worth. The code is also surprisingly straightforward [2].

[1] https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/

[2] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...

ntex was formed after a schism in actix-web and Rust safety/unsafety, with ntex allowing more unsafe code for better performance.

ntex is at the top of the TechEmpower benchmarks, although those benchmarks are not apples-to-apples since each uses its own tricks: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

Ruby is slow. Very slow. How much you may ask? https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s... fastest Ruby entry is at 272th place. Sure, top entries tend to have questionable benchmark-golfing implementations, but it gives you a good primer on the overhead imposed by Ruby.

It is also not early 00s anymore, when you pick an interpreted language, you are not getting "better productivity and tooling". In fact, most interpreted languages lag behind other major languages significantly in the form of JS/TS, Python and Ruby suffering from different woes when it comes to package management and publishing. I would say only TS/JS manages to stand apart with being tolerable, and Python sometimes too by a virtue of its popularity and the amount of information out there whenever you need to troubleshoot.

If you liked Go but felt it being a too verbose to your liking, give .NET a try. I am advocating for it here on HN mostly for fun but it is, in fact, highly underappreciated, considered unsexy and boring while it's anything but after a complete change of trajectory in the last 3-5 years. It is actually the* stack people secretly want but simply don't know about because it is bundled together with Java in the public perception.

*productive CLI tooling, high performance, works well in a really wide range of workloads from low to high level, by far the best ORM across all languages and back-end framework that is easier to work with than Node.JS while consuming 0.1x resources

Although that seems to have improved in recent years.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=json§...

RoR and whatever C++ based web backend there is count as a valid comparison in my book. But comparing the languages itself is maybe a bit off.

On a side note, you can actually compare their performance here if you’re really curious. But take it with a grain of salt since these are synthetic benchmarks.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks

Most benchmarks you'll find essentially have someone's thumb on the scale (intentionally or unintentionally). Most people won't know the different languages well enough to create comparable implementations and if you let different people create the implementations, cheating happens. The TechEmpower benchmarks aren't bad, but many implementations put their thumb on the scale (https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks). For example, a lot of the Go implementations avoid the GC by pre-allocating/reusing structs or allocate arrays knowing how big they need to be in advance (despite that being against the rules). At some point, it becomes "how many features have you turned off." Some Go http routers (like fasthttp and those built off it like Atreugo and Fiber) aren't actually correct and a lot of people in the Go community discourage their use, but they certainly top the benchmarks. Gin and Echo are usually the ones that are well-respected in the Go community.

There is certainly a lot of speculation in Techempower benchmarks and top entries can utilize questionable techniques like simply writing a byte array literal to output stream instead of constructing a response, or (in the past) DB query coalescing to work around inherent limitations of the DB in case of Fortunes or DB quries.

And yet, the fastest Ruby entry is at 274th place while Rails is at 427th.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

oh what machine? with how many workers? doing what?

search for "node" on this page: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

JustJS would like a word https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r20&tes...

In terms of RPS, this web service is more-or-less the fortunes benchmark in the techempower benchmarks, once the data hits the cache: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

Or, at least, they would be after applying optimizations to them.

In short, both of these would serve more rps than you will likely ever need on even the lowest end virtual machines. The underlying API provider will probably cut you off from querying them before you run out of RPS.