> Nonetheless, the astonishingly bad performance of the Python version is surprising.
In the paper, they point out that the Python version is the only one they didn't bother to optimize.
However, my takeaway is that practically everybody can handle north of 1 Gigabits per second (2 Million packets per second x 64 bytes per packet) even on a 1.6GHz core. I find THAT quite a bit more astonishing actually.
I don't see why it's that surprising. We've been stuck on 1Gbps for the better part of 20 years. What's surprising to me is that wired networking was sorta left behind the tech wave, sure 10Gbps exists but it's still not that affordable or widespread.
I wouldn't say it was exactly left behind, because the average consumer will not really benefit from anything over 1Gbit. 1Gbit is already enough to saturate most consumer harddrives.
I run 10gbit inside my home and it didn't even cost me that much (if you go with 10Gbit fiber instead of copper) with the sole reasons of getting quicker transfers between my PC and NAS. My NAS has 4 SFP+ ports and functions as a switch. I bought second hand PCIe SFP+ NICs for $40 each and matching transceivers for $15 each. 10M of fiber costs less than $10.
There's no point in going higher, because 10Gbit is already way past the sequential writing speed of the drive array in my NAS, and it's pretty much saturating the NVMe cache drive in the NAS or the NVMe storage in my PC.
That's not to say you can't go faster, because 100, 200 and 400Gbit are very much possible and in use in datacenters and the like.
> I wouldn't say it was exactly left behind, because the average consumer will not really benefit from anything over 1Gbit. 1Gbit is already enough to saturate most consumer harddrives.
That hasn't been true for a long time. Even one single spinning rust hard drive made in the last decade can do sequential reads at ~120-150MiB/sec, which is easily enough to saturate a 1 Gbit/s link.
SSDs have way, way higher throughput for sequential read and write. Good SSDs will also beat that number handily for random read/writes.
And of course, any machine with more than 1 hard drive can easily saturate a 1Gbit/s network.
I also find it surprising that wired networking has been 'stuck' on 1Gbit/s for decades.
> What's surprising to me is that wired networking was sorta left behind the tech wave
Lack of necessity.
Since the telcos are a gigantic bottleneck to everything in the cloud, and now that everything is in the cloud, there is no need for >1Gbps home networking.
In the paper, they point out that the Python version is the only one they didn't bother to optimize.
However, my takeaway is that practically everybody can handle north of 1 Gigabits per second (2 Million packets per second x 64 bytes per packet) even on a 1.6GHz core. I find THAT quite a bit more astonishing actually.