On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:09:22AM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote: > сб, 26 мар. 2022 г. в 22:23, Ionel GARDAIS <[email protected] > >: > > Thanks Willy for these updates. > > > > While skimming the result on the interop website, I was surprised that > > haproxy is always more than 50% slower than its competitor. > > Is it because you've enable lots of traces as part of your debugging > > process for the runs ? > > > looks like this dockerfile is used > https://github.com/haproxytech/haproxy-qns/blob/master/Dockerfile >
Hi, Thanks for your interest on haproxy QUIC implementation :) Indeed the perfs results reported by the interop test suite for haproxy look miserable. To be honest, at the moment I did not look how these tests are implemented. We left this part out as we dealt with plenty of functional issues. As such, we enabled a lot of traces and debug options to be able to quickly understand bugs, so this may have an impact on the results of perfs test. Now, we are focused on trying to deploy QUIC on haproxy.org to inspect the behavior with real-life browsers. When this is done, the next objective will be to try to improve the results of these perfs tests. -- Amaury Denoyelle
