libev Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12

Charles Kerr charles at
Mon Dec 27 00:26:36 CET 2010

> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 06:22:37PM -0600, Charles Kerr <charles at> wrote:
>> Now that libevent has a stable release of its 2.x series out[1], will
>> the benchmarks on libev's website be updated to include libevent2?
> Interesting, I checked the homepage and it still says latest stable
> release is 1.4.x.

I gave the stable release's url as a footnote[1]  in the mail you
quoted. Niels says he hasn't updated the libevent page because he's
traveling over the holidays.

> I guess the benchmarks could be redone, but unless something has
> drastically changed in the last few months, there is little principal
> difference between the old versions and the current versions of either
> libraries.

The May 2008 benchmarks[2] -- which are linked to in the libev
website's first sentence -- show libev much further ahead of libevent
than in your April 2010 benchmarks[3], which led you to say "there is
now little (practical) performance difference between libev and
libevent, unless one has a really high number of fds to attend to."[4]

When I mailed you in July about updating the benchmarks on libev's
page, you (reasonably) answered that it wouldn't be fair "since
libevent 2 has not even been released yet."

It now has been released.[1]

> So, while I will surely update the benchmark document at some point, it's
> a lot of work, and will unlikely bring any new insights.

I don't understand how that statement is consistent with the April
benchmarks.  If libevent has narrowed the gap as you've said, then
it's misleading to keep the older benchmarks on libev's webpage.

Thanks for listening. I respect your work on libev.


(libevent2 link)
[2] (Marc's benchmarks from May 2008)
[3] (Marc's benchmarks from April 2010)
(benchmark reloaded thread)

More information about the libev mailing list