Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of using asyncio to boost performance when possible. And I do agree that for some (most?) cases asyncio should give better performances results.
However, under heavy load, if one thread becomes stuck in the CPU for whatever reason, the other threads would not be able to kick in due to asyncio's co-operative multi-threading behavior, right? So, In this scenario, a solution that uses the kernel scheduler would give better latency results. I think that's the point of the article that I linked.
Anyway, it is always good to see different approachs in different scenarios 👍👍 Thanks again for the post!
I am generally into giving more time for the framework to mature itself. Although JavaScript was built keeping async behavior in mind, when async-await first came to it, took it some time for async-await to mature and make itself what it is today.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of using asyncio to boost performance when possible. And I do agree that for some (most?) cases asyncio should give better performances results.
However, under heavy load, if one thread becomes stuck in the CPU for whatever reason, the other threads would not be able to kick in due to asyncio's co-operative multi-threading behavior, right? So, In this scenario, a solution that uses the kernel scheduler would give better latency results. I think that's the point of the article that I linked.
Anyway, it is always good to see different approachs in different scenarios 👍👍 Thanks again for the post!
I am generally into giving more time for the framework to mature itself. Although JavaScript was built keeping async behavior in mind, when
async-awaitfirst came to it, took it some time for async-await to mature and make itself what it is today.