Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

blog about performance benchmarking in libp2p #74

Open
Tracked by #63
p-shahi opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
Tracked by #63

blog about performance benchmarking in libp2p #74

p-shahi opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@p-shahi
Copy link
Member

p-shahi commented Jun 13, 2023

Draft at https://observablehq.com/@mxinden-workspace/libp2p-perf

@mxinden mxinden linked a pull request Aug 14, 2023 that will close this issue
@p-shahi
Copy link
Member Author

p-shahi commented Aug 22, 2023

Imo we should wait to publish the blog post until libp2p/test-plans#261 is resolved and browser transports are added. Thoughts @mxinden ?

@mxinden
Copy link
Member

mxinden commented Aug 25, 2023

we should wait to publish the blog post until libp2p/test-plans#261 is resolved

Agreed.

and browser transports are added

I don't think the blog post needs to be block on browser transports. We already have more content than a single post can hold. We likely need multiple posts anyways. Browser transports can be one in a series of many.

@marten-seemann
Copy link
Contributor

and browser transports are added

I don't think the blog post needs to be block on browser transports. We already have more content than a single post can hold. We likely need multiple posts anyways. Browser transports can be one in a series of many.

I agree, we don't need to wait for the browser transports.

I'd suggest to wait until we've patched our stacks (at the very least, Go and Rust) to achieve decent transfer speeds (let's say 80% of the iPerf result).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants