Request for benchmark reports comparing WarpParse and Fluent Bit

[seeker-zuo]

Request for detailed benchmark reports comparing WarpParse and Fluent Bit to provide objective data for technical decision-making.

[datasc31]

WarpParse and Fluent-bit

Log parsing test based on nginx logs and AWS logs

3.1.1 Nginx Access Log (239B)

Engine	Topology	EPS	MPS	CPU (Avg/Peak)	MEM (Avg/Peak)
WarpParse	File -> BlackHole	2,456,100	559.81	684% / 825%	107 MB / 120 MB
Fluent Bit	File -> BlackHole	2,768,211	630.95	805% / 926%	1204 MB / 1333 MB
WarpParse	TCP -> BlackHole	1,737,200	395.96	507% / 651%	426 MB / 450 MB
Fluent Bit	TCP -> BlackHole	425,700	97.03	92% / 100%	291 MB / 333 MB
WarpParse	TCP -> File	1,084,600	247.21	541% / 722%	697 MB / 700 MB
Fluent Bit	TCP -> File	421,400	96.05	133% / 196%	352 MB / 412 MB

---

3.1.2 AWS ELB Log (411B)

Engine	Topology	EPS	MPS	CPU (Avg/Peak)	MEM (Avg/Peak)
WarpParse	File -> BlackHole	1,012,400	396.82	827% / 938%	237 MB / 264 MB
Fluent Bit	File -> BlackHole	1,239,418	485.80	874% / 930%	1703 MB / 1860 MB
WarpParse	TCP -> BlackHole	884,700	346.76	612% / 814%	710 MB / 743 MB
Fluent Bit	TCP -> BlackHole	215,500	84.47	96% / 100%	379 MB / 599 MB
WarpParse	TCP -> File	347,800	136.32	496% / 615%	481 MB / 848 MB
Fluent Bit	TCP -> File	212,300	83.21	164% / 196%	452 MB / 489 MB

The above benchmark results are provided to support an objective, data-driven comparison between WarpParse and Fluent Bit across different log types and pipeline topologies.

Please review and confirm whether these results and test conditions are acceptable and representative.
Once confirmed, we can proceed with the next step of technical decision-making based on verified performance and resource efficiency data.

[datasc31]

@zwk4zhendeC