ehttpd 0.9.0

A thread-based HTTP server library, which can be used to create custom HTTP server applications
Documentation 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

[![License BSD-2-Clause](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-BSD--2--Clause-blue.svg)](https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause)
[![License MIT](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-MIT-blue.svg)](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
[![AppVeyor CI](https://ci.appveyor.com/api/projects/status/github/KizzyCode/ehttpd-rust?svg=true)](https://ci.appveyor.com/project/KizzyCode/ehttpd-rust)
[![docs.rs](https://docs.rs/ehttpd/badge.svg)](https://docs.rs/ehttpd)
[![crates.io](https://img.shields.io/crates/v/ehttpd.svg)](https://crates.io/crates/ehttpd)
[![Download numbers](https://img.shields.io/crates/d/ehttpd.svg)](https://crates.io/crates/ehttpd)
[![dependency status](https://deps.rs/crate/ehttpd/latest/status.svg)](https://deps.rs/crate/ehttpd)


# `ehttpd`
Welcome to `ehttpd` 🎉

`ehttpd` is a HTTP server library, which can be used to create custom HTTP server applications. It also offers an
optional built-in threadpool-based server for simple applications (feature: `server`, disabled by default).


## Threadpool-based server
The rationale behind the thread-based approach is that it is much easier to implement than `async/await`, subsequently
requires less code, and is – in theory – less error prone.

Furthermore, it also simplifies application development since the developer cannot accidentally stall the entire runtime
with a single blocking call; being managed by the OS-scheduler, threads offer much stronger concurrency isolation
guarantees (which can even be `nice`d or tweaked in most environments if desired).

Note that, starting with version `0.9`, the built-in server is an optional feature and needs to be enabled using the
`server` feature.


### Performance
While the thread-based approach is not the most efficient out there, it's not that bad either. Some `wrk` benchmarks:

#### MacBook Pro (`M1 Pro`, `helloworld`, `v0.7.1`)
```ignore
$ wrk -t 64 -c 64 http://localhost:9999/testolope
Running 10s test @ http://localhost:9999/testolope
  64 threads and 64 connections
  Thread Stats   Avg      Stdev     Max   +/- Stdev
    Latency     1.00ms  520.00us  27.29ms   95.96%
    Req/Sec     1.02k   262.37     6.00k    94.81%
  654074 requests in 10.10s, 32.44MB read
Requests/sec:  64756.19
Transfer/sec:      3.21MB
```

#### Old Linux Machine (`Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500K CPU @ 3.30GHz`, `helloworld-nokeepalive`, `v0.7.0`)
```ignore
$ wrk -t 64 -c 64 http://localhost:9999/testolope
Running 10s test @ http://localhost:9999/testolope
  64 threads and 64 connections
  Thread Stats   Avg      Stdev     Max   +/- Stdev
    Latency     2.22ms    1.00ms  60.93ms   95.30%
    Req/Sec   435.19     56.94     1.00k    85.05%
  278046 requests in 10.10s, 18.83MB read
Requests/sec:  27528.42
Transfer/sec:      1.86MB
```