Engin Diri
_CLOUD

Follow

_CLOUD

Follow
Fiber (Go) vs. Nickel.rs (Rust): A Performance Showdown in 'Hello World'

Fiber (Go) vs. Nickel.rs (Rust): A Performance Showdown in 'Hello World'

Engin Diri's photo
Engin Diri
ยทApr 8, 2023ยท

4 min read

Featured on Hashnode

Table of contents

  • Introduction
  • The Competitors in detail
  • The Battle ๐ŸฅŠ
  • The Results
  • Conclusion ๐ŸŽ‰
  • Resources

Introduction

In this article, I want to compare the performance of two different web frameworks for Rust and Go. Both frameworks are very similar in their design (all are inspired by Express.js) and both claim to be the fastest web framework (blazing fast). Both frameworks are easy to use, which is a big plus for me (I am not the smartest guy in the world, so easy is good).

The Competitors in detail

Nickele.rs (Rust)

For Rust, I have chosen the Nickel.rs framework. It is a minimal and lightweight framework for web apps in Rust. It is inspired by Express.js and provides a lot of features like flexible routing, middleware, JSON handling, and more. And it's blazingly fast!

Fiber (Go)

As a contender for Go, I have chosen the Fiber framework. This framework is also inspired by Express.js and is built on top of Fasthttp. It has a lot of features like middleware, routing, WebSockets, and more. And it claims to have extreme performance and a small memory footprint.

The Battle ๐ŸฅŠ

The specs of my machine are Apple M1 Max (10 Core CPU) with 32GB of RAM.

The Tests will be written in bombardier and will be executed for 50, 100 and 500 concurrent users with executing 5M requests.

I use the following versions:

  • Go: go1.20.3 darwin/arm64

  • Rust: rustc 1.65.0 (897e37553 2022-11-02)

The Test Code

Nickel.rs (Rust)

#[macro_use]
extern crate nickel;

use nickel::Nickel;

fn main() {
    let mut server = Nickel::new();

    server.utilize(router! {
        get "**" => |_req, _res| {
            "Hello world!"
        }
    });

    server.listen("127.0.0.1:6767").unwrap();
}

Fiber (Go)

package main

import "github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2"

func main() {
    app := fiber.New()

    app.Get("/", func(c *fiber.Ctx) error {
        return c.SendString("Hello, World ๐Ÿน!")
    })

    app.Listen(":3000")
}

The Results

50 concurrent users

Fiber (Go)Nickel.rs (Rust)
Time taken140s47s
Request per second35378.09106293.29
Mean response time1.41 ms0.39396 ms
Median response time0.845 ms0.049 ms
90th percentile3.44 ms0.110 ms
Max response time107.07 ms33.91 s
CPU35%18%
Memory11.102 MB4 MB

100 concurrent users

Fiber (Go)Nickel.rs (Rust)
Time taken184s51s
Request per second27073.5597200.03
Mean response time3.69 ms0.92 ms
Median response time2.90 ms0.04 ms
90th percentile7.94 ms0.09400 ms
Max response time136.02 ms29.91 s
CPU35%18%
Memory13 MB4 MB

500 concurrent users

Fiber (Go)Nickel.rs (Rust)
Time taken189s1m
Request per second26359.0583084.80
Mean response time18.97 ms5.00 ms
Median response time18.27 ms0.04 ms
90th percentile31.78 ms0.085 ms
Max response time185.04 ms32.25 s
CPU35%17%
Memory29 MB4 MB

Conclusion ๐ŸŽ‰

Based on the data provided, Nickel.rs (Rust) is the winner. There are several reasons for this:

  1. ๐Ÿš€ Faster response times: Nickel.rs (Rust) has lower mean, median, and 90th percentile response times across all levels of concurrent users compared to Fiber (Go).

  2. โšก Higher request per second: Nickel.rs (Rust) can handle more requests per second than Fiber (Go) in each test.

  3. ๐ŸŒก๏ธ Lower CPU usage: Nickel.rs (Rust) uses less CPU (about half) compared to Fiber (Go) in all tests.

  4. ๐Ÿง  Lower memory usage: Nickel.rs (Rust) uses significantly less memory (about 3 to 7 times less) compared to Fiber ( Go) in all tests.

In conclusion, ๐Ÿ† Rust (specifically Nickel.rs) outperforms Go (Fiber) in terms of response times, request handling, CPU usage, and memory consumption, making it the winner in this comparison.

Resources

ย 
Share this