MIO VS quinn

Was playing around with mio (https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio) (not that mio itself is very important here!) and was trying to implement a simple something that I've done in java before: a Reactor that you can register ReactorClients with that will get callback whenever there are events on the corresponding socket etc.

How does it compare to mio?

TcpStream gets its wake behavior by delegating to the fd wakers. The Unix wakers have a few implementations, for different platforms. On Linux and Android, epoll is used.

The real implementation details of the I/O event queue is done in mio as u/hniksic pointed out, but that's more comparable with libuv which is certainly a huge part of the Node runtime. mio and libuv have a lot of similarities (at least they used to).

My example was "twice by one developer", not "twice across all indexed repos."

A spot check shows that quite a few in your link are used specifically to ensure correct handling of Rust multi-level breaks work syntax, like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/blob/master/crate... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/blob/master/tests/sourc... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... and likely more.

Another is a translation of BASIC code to Rust, using break as a form of goto. https://github.com/coding-horror/basic-computer-games/blob/e...

The example at https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/blob/master/tests/tcp.rs is a nice one

    // Wait for our TCP stream to connect

In my program, I have about 6 different components that follow the pattern below. Basically, the components run a thread while polling on crossbeam channels, file descriptors or sockets. For polling, I am using Mio (https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio).

On the code side it's pretty much the same as C++. You have a module that defines an interface and per-platform implementations that are included depending on a "configuration conditional checks" #[cfg(target_os = "linux")] macro.

https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/blob/c6b5f13adf67483d927b176...

Made possible by Wasi support for Mio https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/pull/1576

Indeed! In practice it's done through the polling operation: instead of a separate poll for op1 and op2, the program essentially tells the OS "wake me when either op1 or op2 is ready" (through the epoll syscall on Linux). The mio crate implements this, and the example on the readme is basically the same loop, but written with this polling strategy in mind.

Since it lives on top of UDP, I believe all you need is SOCK_DGRAM, right? The rest of QUIC can be in a userspace library ergonomically designed for your programming language e.g. https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn - and can interoperate with others who have made different choices.

Alternately, if you need even higher performance, DPDK gives the abstractions you'd need; see e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3565477.3569154 on performance characteristics.

> Making things thread safe for runtime-agnostic utilities like WebSocket is yet another price we pay for making everything multi-threaded by default. The standard way of doing what I'm doing in my code above would be to spawn one of the loops on a separate background task, which could land on a separate thread, meaning we must do all that synchronization to manage reading and writing to a socket from different threads for no good reason.

Why so? Libraries like quinn[1] define "no IO" crate to define runtime-agnostic protocol implementation. In this way we won't suffer by forcing ourselves using synchronization primitives.

Also, IMO it's relatively easy to use Send-bounded future in non-Send(i.o.w. single-threaded) runtime environment, but it's almost impossible to do opposite. Ecosystem users can freely use single threaded async runtime, but ecosystem providers should not. If you want every users to only use single threaded runtime, it's a major loss for the Rust ecosystem.

Typechecked Send/Sync bounds are one of the holy grails that Rust provides. Albeit it's overkill to use multithreaded async runtimes for most users, we should not abandon them because it opens an opportunity for high-end users who might seek Rust for their high-performance backends.

[1]: https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn

quicssh-rs is quicssh rust implementation. It is based on quinn and tokio

Regarding Quinn, I had a blast this week resurrecting an old PR. Looking forward to the next!

By studying u/djcu/hachyderm.io (and others!) excellent work in Quinn, doing a sans I/O implementation of QUIC https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn we have a way forward.

QUIC isn't web/wasm-compatible because of https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn/issues/1388, so durian wouldn't either since it's built on top of it.

Quinn, as in the implementation of QUIC? https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn

You are right, I am planning to switch the transport to UDP + quic using the awesome QUINN library, https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn .

Hi, I am new to the community, I just started learning rust and created a secure UDP tunnel based on the Quinn library, thanks to Quinn, I didn't need to go into the detail of the QUIC protocol and quickly created a UDP tunnel, and thanks to the BBR congestion control algorithm it uses, the tunnel performs quite well with lousy and long fat network, I didn't do any benchmark, but it performs a lot better (higher throughput with LFN) than most of other TCP tunnel implementations I used before.