Merge uWebTorrentTracker back into this package?

[feross]

Is it worth looking into getting uWebTorrentTracker merged back into this package? Or is the goal too different? There's an argument to be made either way:

Separate – having the spec operating as two implementations ensures that any single implementation isn't the de-facto standard, but rather the spec is the standard.

Together – save maintenance effort / confusion for newcomers.

Curious to hear your thoughts, @DiegoRBaquero

[DiegoRBaquero]

The only difference, I think, is that uwt uses uws instead of ws. Spec should remain the same. It's just that uws is much more performant. Maybe make it an option here?

[feross]

Do we have some way to measure the current performance difference, like a benchmark suite? I think ws has tried to improve performance recently so it's worth double checking before switching modules.

[DiegoRBaquero]

There are these benchmarks: https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets/tree/master/benchmarks

The easiest real benchmark would be for me to run bitorrent-tracker for BTorrent and see if it can run with the same memory and CPU, but I honestly think ws will consume a lot more memory.

We could do what socket.io/engione.io did: socketio/engine.io#459

[DiegoRBaquero]

@feross thoughts?

[alxhotel]

I've tested the change from ws to uws and it uses at least 2 times less memory and much less CPU. I don't have any benchmarks, but I can confidently say that uws is a good improvement.

[DiegoRBaquero]

I've archived uwt and will work on bittorrent-tracker from now on. I can see GREAT improvements in ws since I released uwt, but still, uWebSockets should be better. Will get to it when I have time

[feross]

@DiegoRBaquero Thanks for the update. You might have interest in the new backend design that @alxhotel has been considering: #354 I'm sure he'd love your feedback if you time in that issue.