ESP32 · Code review · Why does esp32-review use twice the memory of comparable tools?

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

I just read the esp32-review source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

This is not a esp32-review problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

I just read the esp32-review source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

I just read the esp32-review source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

This is not a esp32-review problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

One counter-example: below esp32-review 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

I just read the esp32-review source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".