goreplay

Pros of wrk

• Lightweight and efficient, designed for high-performance benchmarking
• Supports Lua scripting for custom request generation and response handling
• Provides detailed performance statistics and latency distribution

Cons of wrk

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Lacks built-in traffic recording and replay functionality
• Less suitable for complex, multi-step scenarios or API testing

Code Comparison

wrk:

wrk.method = "POST"
wrk.body   = '{"key": "value"}'
wrk.headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"

GoReplay:

gor --input-raw :8000 --output-http "http://localhost:8001"

Key Differences

• Purpose: wrk is primarily a benchmarking tool, while GoReplay focuses on traffic capture and replay
• Functionality: GoReplay offers more versatile traffic manipulation and real-time analysis
• Ease of use: wrk requires scripting for advanced scenarios, GoReplay has a simpler command-line interface
• Protocol support: wrk is limited to HTTP/HTTPS, GoReplay supports various protocols and can work with raw TCP traffic

Both tools serve different purposes in the web development ecosystem. wrk excels at load testing and benchmarking, while GoReplay shines in traffic analysis, debugging, and replication of production environments.

Pros of hey

• Simpler and more lightweight, focused solely on HTTP load testing
• Easy to use with a straightforward command-line interface
• Provides clear and concise output for quick analysis

Cons of hey

• Limited functionality compared to goreplay's comprehensive traffic recording and replaying capabilities
• Lacks advanced features like request filtering, middleware support, and real-time traffic analysis

Code comparison

hey:

func (b *Work) runWorker(n int) {
    for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
        b.makeRequest(b.client)
    }
}

goreplay:

func (t *TCPMessage) UUID() []byte {
    return t.packet.Dump()[t.start:t.start+16]
}

The code snippets demonstrate the different focus areas of the two projects. hey's code is centered around making HTTP requests for load testing, while goreplay's code deals with packet analysis and traffic manipulation.

hey is best suited for quick and simple HTTP load testing scenarios, while goreplay offers a more comprehensive solution for capturing, analyzing, and replaying network traffic. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the depth of traffic analysis needed.

Pros of Vegeta

• Designed specifically for HTTP load testing with a focus on high-performance and concurrency
• Provides detailed metrics and reports, including latency distribution and histogram
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, CSV, Histogram) for easy integration with other tools

Cons of Vegeta

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols, unlike GoReplay which supports TCP traffic
• Lacks the ability to record and replay real traffic, which GoReplay excels at
• May require more setup and configuration for complex scenarios compared to GoReplay's simpler approach

Code Comparison

Vegeta:

rate := vegeta.Rate{Freq: 100, Per: time.Second}
duration := 5 * time.Second
targeter := vegeta.NewStaticTargeter(vegeta.Target{
    Method: "GET",
    URL:    "http://example.com",
})
attacker := vegeta.NewAttacker()

results := attacker.Attack(targeter, rate, duration, "Example")

GoReplay:

input := gor.NewFileInput("requests.gor")
output := gor.NewHTTPOutput("http://localhost:8000")
limiter := gor.NewLimiter(100)

gor.Run(input, output, limiter)

Both tools offer powerful load testing capabilities, but Vegeta focuses on HTTP-specific performance testing with detailed metrics, while GoReplay excels in recording and replaying real traffic across various protocols.

Pros of Bombardier

• Designed specifically for HTTP(S) load testing and benchmarking
• Supports multiple concurrent connections and precise timing control
• Written in Go, offering good performance and cross-platform compatibility

Cons of Bombardier

• Limited to HTTP(S) protocols, unlike GoReplay's broader traffic capture capabilities
• Lacks GoReplay's ability to record and replay real traffic patterns
• Doesn't offer middleware or plugins for extending functionality

Code Comparison

Bombardier (simple benchmark):

bombardier -c 100 -n 10000 http://example.com

GoReplay (capture and replay):

gor --input-raw :8080 --output-http http://localhost:8081

Key Differences

Bombardier focuses on generating synthetic load for HTTP(S) benchmarking, while GoReplay specializes in capturing and replaying real traffic across various protocols. Bombardier is more suitable for stress testing and performance benchmarking of web applications, whereas GoReplay excels in replicating production traffic patterns for testing and debugging purposes.

Both tools are written in Go, offering good performance and cross-platform support. However, GoReplay provides more flexibility in terms of protocol support and traffic manipulation, making it a more versatile tool for complex testing scenarios. Bombardier, on the other hand, offers a simpler and more focused approach to HTTP load testing.

Pros of Locust

• Supports distributed load testing across multiple machines
• Provides a web-based UI for real-time test monitoring and control
• Allows writing test scenarios in Python, offering more flexibility

Cons of Locust

• Requires writing test scripts, which can be more time-consuming
• May have higher resource usage for large-scale tests
• Limited built-in support for capturing and replaying traffic

Code Comparison

Locust example:

from locust import HttpUser, task, between

class WebsiteUser(HttpUser):
    wait_time = between(1, 5)

    @task
    def index_page(self):
        self.client.get("/")

GoReplay example:

gor --input-raw :8000 --output-http="http://staging.com"

While Locust requires writing Python scripts to define test scenarios, GoReplay can capture and replay traffic with a simple command-line interface. Locust offers more customization options, but GoReplay excels in ease of use for basic traffic replication.