I would recommend also testing servers using one (or more) computer as client and another as server. For example, you were testing localhost connections only which doesn't represent real world performance with real sockets that well. In addition, wrk was running on 8 CPU cores so unless you had reserved additional identical number of physical cores for all the test servers, asynchronous servers would get extra boost compared to multi-threaded servers due not over-booking the CPU that badly.
With real sockets I'd expect the server with lowest latency (Rust with async + multi-threaded) to get the best results.
If your benchmark software supports it, usually a better way to test servers is to decide timeout for a request (say 50 ms) and then test how many request/s you can execute until you start to get timeouts. Some server software is really unfair and fails to serve older request first to keep worst case latency sensible. This kind of testing would preferably ramp the request rate slowly until the timeout is triggered for a request. Best output for this kind of test would be a graph with request/s on horizontal axis and worst case latency on vertical axis.
If you end the test on first timeout, I'd expect Java servers to fail early because those often stall during GC and if your timeout is pretty small, a single world-stop GC may be enough to ruin the run. It's possible to create Java servers that do not exhibit stalls but the most simple implementation often fails on that.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Updates to benchmark testing were great!
I would recommend also testing servers using one (or more) computer as client and another as server. For example, you were testing localhost connections only which doesn't represent real world performance with real sockets that well. In addition, wrk was running on 8 CPU cores so unless you had reserved additional identical number of physical cores for all the test servers, asynchronous servers would get extra boost compared to multi-threaded servers due not over-booking the CPU that badly.
With real sockets I'd expect the server with lowest latency (Rust with async + multi-threaded) to get the best results.
If your benchmark software supports it, usually a better way to test servers is to decide timeout for a request (say 50 ms) and then test how many request/s you can execute until you start to get timeouts. Some server software is really unfair and fails to serve older request first to keep worst case latency sensible. This kind of testing would preferably ramp the request rate slowly until the timeout is triggered for a request. Best output for this kind of test would be a graph with request/s on horizontal axis and worst case latency on vertical axis.
If you end the test on first timeout, I'd expect Java servers to fail early because those often stall during GC and if your timeout is pretty small, a single world-stop GC may be enough to ruin the run. It's possible to create Java servers that do not exhibit stalls but the most simple implementation often fails on that.