You don't have GLibC build for Linux? It's possible that MUSL is holding the performance of your program back.

[KSXGitHub]

Hi @Byron, I just discovered today that the musl build of my very own pdu was 17 times slower than the glibc build. Then I discovered that the release page of your dua-cli doesn't provide a glibc build.

[Byron]

I wonder if forcing jemalloc (or generally a faster allocator) could fix the MUSL perf issue for pdu? If so, maybe that should also be adopted for dua-cli to have better performance, maybe on Linux specifically?
Thus far I have always compiled my own 'standard' versions locally of both pdu and dua-cli and thus never noticed.

[KSXGitHub]

I didn't do that because I find glibc to be good enough already. Could jemalloc + musl beat glibc in performance?

[Byron]

Right, you just tried a MUSL build, and don't plan to have one so no need to change the allocator. Thus far, nobody has mentioned such an issue either, maybe nobody is using these binaries provided here, who knows 😅.

[KSXGitHub]

Every pdu release contains a musl binary. It's just that I have only used the glibc binary for benchmarks. So I was worried my inclusion of dua-cli was being biased.

[Byron]

Then it might make sense to try to fix the pdu release, I thought, and if it works for you, it would work for dua-cli, which then may make the benchmarks more biased. That was my thinking, and I jumped right into that :).

[KSXGitHub]

OK. I will try to improve my musl build to see. I will also try to build dua with glibc.