Fish-Networking vs Mirror
These benchmarks are very old. Server outbound bandwidth metrics have changed.
As of the date 2023/08/26 Mirror is believed to be approximately 5% more efficient in bandwidth, and Fish-Networking about 90-95% more efficient in bandwidth.
Example:
if Mirror previously sent 100mB/s they are now expected to send 95mB/s.
If Fish-Networking previously sent 100mB/s it would now send 5mB/s
Versions
Fish-Networking v1.4.3
Mirror Networking v66.0.3
Results
Hardware
Windows Server 2019
AMD EPYC 7402P 24-Core (1 SLICE/CORE USED!)
2.00 GB RAM
100 CCU Scaling
FishNet Server lost 1.5% of it's performance.
FishNet Client ran at 1350 FPS.
Mirror Server lost 29.5% of it's performance.
Mirror Client ran at 791 FPS.
200 CCU Scaling
FishNet Server lost 7.4% of it's performance.
Mirror Server lost 83.2% of it's performance.
Clients were untested.
100 CCU Bandwidth
FishNet Server per second sent 7.3mB (adjusted 0.55mB) and received 1.1mB.
Mirror Server per second sent 31.8mB (adjusted 30.2mB) and received 3.2mB.
200 CCU Bandwidth
FishNet Server per second sent 29.9mB (adjusted 2.24mB) and received 2.2mB.
Mirror Server per second sent 94.3mb (adjusted 89.6mB) and received 4.8mB.
Spawned Network Objects (idle)
0
1.5ms
1.5ms
500
1.5ms
1.9ms
1000
1.5ms
2.2ms
2000
1.5ms
2.9ms
4000
1.5ms
4.2ms
Results
Client FPS: FishNet clients achieved 70% more FPS than Mirror.
Bandwidth: FishNet used 67-78% less bandwidth than Mirror.
Server Performance(200 CCU): FishNet retained 92.6% server performance, while Mirror retained only 16.8% performance.
Server Performance(4000 idle objects): FishNet retained 100% server performance, while Mirror retained only 36% performance.
Last updated