Yet another hello world ab competition with no source code, setup, kernel parameter info or whatsoever

> And Node is perfect because it'll be working with Javascript on the clientside, and not dealing with the http protocol.

I'm confused. What?

On the results, node didn't budge from 30 to 1000 concurrent connections, while the Lua servers just plain crashed, despite being faster at first. Conclusion: Lua is perfect for servers (?).

Go also hangs at the end with a lot of concurrent requests. I think it has something to do with how it time outs http connections.

Maybe the same thing is happening with Lua?

Also what were the specs of the computer you ran your tests on?

I've successfully made one node server handle over 400K concurrent connections on a 24 core (4*6cores) and 32gb ram. Not with standard configs though. And I know there is more room to grow when the reverse-proxy gets out of the way. However this setup easily saturates 1gbs NIC, and never tested with dedicated 10gb uplink. If you are looking for ACID database application stack then you won't get anywhere near raw output anyway. So don't bother choosing any like you did. But If you are in the nosql business then you might get around some 10k iops with the right set of hardware and config tweaks.

You might want to compare node against luvit.io instead of plain lua+luasocket

undefined