---
title: "Comment by OneLifeVibe on \"Building a Low-Latency Webhook Ingress Gateway with Rust and `io_uring`\" | Hashnode"
description: "Appreciated the honest framing in section 3 — the realistic-expectation note that most of the win for small webhook payloads comes from fewer syscalls, batching"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/building-a-low-latency-webhook-ingress-gateway-with-rust-and-io-uring/6af3d2c7716d8ad3d27645af/comment/6af3e6c2fa31e6ed2f0322d4"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/building-a-low-latency-webhook-ingress-gateway-with-rust-and-io-uring/6af3d2c7716d8ad3d27645af)

Comment [Building a Low-Latency Webhook Ingress Gateway with Rust and \`io\_uring\`](https://hashnode.com/posts/building-a-low-latency-webhook-ingress-gateway-with-rust-and-io-uring/6af3d2c7716d8ad3d27645af)

[OneLifeVibe](https://hashnode.com/@onelifevibe)

[4h ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/building-a-low-latency-webhook-ingress-gateway-with-rust-and-io-uring/6af3d2c7716d8ad3d27645af/comment/6af3e6c2fa31e6ed2f0322d4)

Appreciated the honest framing in section 3 — the realistic-expectation note that most of the win for small webhook payloads comes from fewer syscalls, batching and multishot receive, not from zero-copy itself, is exactly the kind of caveat that saves teams a painful port. The checklist for zero-copy receive is also genuinely useful: Linux 6.15, NIC header/data split, and the SINGLE\_ISSUER, DEFER\_TASKRUN and CQE32 flags together mean it is not a drop-in switch. One thing I would add from operating ingress in practice: the backpressure table's fast-fail with 503 and Retry-After is the right call, since sensible senders retry on 5xx — accepting work you cannot drain just moves the queue into your own process. Good piece.