• kolorafa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, but with WebSocket you need to have a server and that will consume some additional CPU.

    Without it you only need some random CDN to do the download test.

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This server is just a piece of software that accepts and responds to TCP sockets. It could be anything, but you’re not consuming more CPU power by doing less work.

      The http protocol requires you prepend every message with a bunch of headers and for them to have a static size. (tho plenty of apps allow you to bend the rules quite a bit)

      After switching to a websocket, none of that applies. You can just dump data straight into the TCP socket. Or TLS stream that goes into the TCP socket. But that would be same for the http requests

      • kolorafa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        On the server side to send you data, using any web server with mmap support will probably be less CPU intensive than app that handles websocket, but yes, the details matter as when reading a lot of small files vs websocket, then websocket could be better for CPU usage especially when you could generate data.

        But once again using plain old http allow you to use the speestest software against any CDN very easy IMO.

        • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Adding headers and some other minor requirements is slower than not. That’s really the difference, it’s not complicated.