The pipelining benchmark is identical to that of Japronto (another, very similar thing posted here on HN a few days ago). Japronto's repo on GitHub holds the wrk pipelining script used.

I haven't had the time to add configurations for every server tested (esp. Apache & NGINX) but the main point here is to showcase the Node.js vs. Node.js with µWS perf. difference.

How did you not have the time? Apologies, I might be missing something, but was this an emergency work assignment?

If not, then you should have taken the time to provide the information for a fair comparison with the other stacks.

As it is, you're just asking the community to take your word for it.

We don't need to take his word for it. It's open source, so we can run the tests ourselves.

I think it's completely understandable that he threw in the others, probably default config, without caring much about it since they weren't the point of the writeup.

Does this pass all the HTTP tests in Node.js repo? If not the perf diff is irrelevant.

It has a mostly-compatible API but strict conformance doesn't seem to be the goal here. If your application does not make use of obscure features provided by core http (it could probably be refactored to do without anyways), then it's a free boost in performance.

Is the req object a readable stream? is the res object a writable stream? How do you handle backpressure with this mostly-compatible API?