# Erlang io-uring support

**URL:** <https://erlangforums.com/t/erlang-io-uring-support/765>\
**Category:** Chat / Discussions\
**Tags:** split-thread, io\_uring\
**Created:** [November 22, 2021, 3:24pm UTC](https://erlangforums.com/t/erlang-io-uring-support/765 "2021-11-22T15:24:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LaF0rge](https://erlangforums.com/user_avatar/erlangforums.com/laf0rge/32/2612_2.png) [@LaF0rge](https://erlangforums.com/u/LaF0rge)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2024, 7:14pm UTC](https://erlangforums.com/t/erlang-io-uring-support/765/18 "2024-10-20T19:14:23Z")

</div>

> [@maxlapshin](#):
>
> as far as I understood the io\_uring documentation, it can require full migration from epoll to io\_uring. So it means having two implementations.

Yes, just like having a different windows and posix implementation; the architecture for multiple I/O backends exists.

> [@maxlapshin](#):
>
> About security: it may be ok, if we speak about 30% of optimization =)

As stated, the rate of security issues discovered was in earlier versions of the code. Also: The 30% less CPU cycles were of an entire (GSM Base Station Controller) application. If you’d run a low-level I/O benchmark that does nothing but I/O, the speed-up would of course be much higher than that.

---

_[View the full topic](https://erlangforums.com/t/erlang-io-uring-support/765)._