monoio VS wg-async

There is also another thread-per-core implementation by ByteDance (TikTok) for Rust called Monoio with benchmarks[0] comparing it to Tokio and Glommio.

[0] https://github.com/bytedance/monoio/blob/master/docs/en/benc...

My understanding is you always need a runtime, somethings needs to drive the async flow. But there are others on the market, just not without the.. market domination... of tokio.

https://github.com/smol-rs/smol looks promising simply for being minimal

https://github.com/bytedance/monoio looks potentially easier to work with than tokio

https://github.com/DataDog/glommio is built around linux io_uring and seems somewhat promising for performance reasons.

I haven't played with any of these yet, because Tokio is unfortunately the path of least resistance. And a bit viral in how it's infected tings.

I assume Tokio itself, see e.g monoio or glommio, but also Seastar for C++.

I think monoio is also thread-per-core but also iouring https://github.com/bytedance/monoio. I don't know how you would shard certain keys into different threads, but if you can do that deterministically then there could be a significant speed up.

I believe this is also "thread-per-core".

Bytedance has their in-house monoio <https://github.com/bytedance/monoio> (supports io-uring) but it requires rust nightly.

There's another thread-per-core runtime called https://github.com/bytedance/monoio

It's worth mentioning: Under "Async Executors", for "io_uring" there is only "Glommio"

I recently found out that ByteDance has a competitor library which supposedly has better performance:

https://github.com/bytedance/monoio

https://github.com/DataDog/glommio/issues/554

I see that, I also tried with monoio, but the developer of that runtime mentioned that https://github.com/bytedance/monoio/blob/master/examples/hyper_server.rs might have soundness issues

I believe the solution mentioned in rust-lang/wg-async is the way to go: Add traits like AsyncWrite, AsyncRead, Executor/Runtime to the std so that tokio/async-std can implement them.

This is a consequence of runtimes relying on global variables that their core future types are dependent on. Creating abstractions to solve this problem is one of the main goals of the the async working group [0].

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-async

Provided the futures you're selecting over are cancellation safe the plain loop over select! should be fine. Multiple channels in particular are safe to select over - if you have futures that aren't cancellation safe, you can just wrap them up in a task on the end of a channel and then select on that.

I'd like to be able to write runtime agnostic async libs.

You might be interested in taking a look at and potentially participating in the "Async Vision Document"[1] which is an exercise the team is going through to collect feedback about the current state of the ecosystem and what the pain points are, as well as a way to lay doing what the desired future state of async Rust should be[2]. The process is happening, as you would expect, in the open and there's still time to influence it[3] if your concerns aren't yet addressed or even mentioned[4].

[1]: https://rust-lang.github.io/wg-async-foundations/vision.html

[2]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/03/18/async-vision-doc.html

[3]: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-async-foundations/pulls

[4]: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-async-foundations/issues

Thanks for the feedback. I posted this comment to a relevant github issue, fyi.