Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

nxweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#11

Post by glossyscr »

sanxiyn wrote: post #10
glossyscr wrote: post #7

Why? While Nxweb looks very promising, my first question would be 'Why should I use it over eg Nginx?' It would be helpful to have some direct comparison to other servers on the landing page. EDIT: Ok, there is a link to some odd benchmarks and it includes performance comparisons to Nginx and others which are not understandable (Nginx 141 req/s and Nxweb 200 / 121 req/s while it's not clear when 200 and when 121); mo…

Mongoose is a web server. See https://github.com/cesanta/mongoose . It's obviously not https://github.com/Automattic/mongoose .

Thanks, first time I hear about a Mongoose web server.

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#14

Post by chrissnell »

glossyscr wrote: post #7

Why? While Nxweb looks very promising, my first question would be 'Why should I use it over eg Nginx?' It would be helpful to have some direct comparison to other servers on the landing page. EDIT: Ok, there is a link to some odd benchmarks and it includes performance comparisons to Nginx and others which are not understandable (Nginx 141 req/s and Nxweb 200 / 121 req/s while it's not clear when 200 and when 121); mo…

Those benchmarks are well and great but with HTTP/2 support in nginx, do they even matter? I'm reasonably certain that nginx will out-perform for the average client in real-world, TLS-enabled testing.

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#15

Post by rdw »

glossyscr wrote: post #7

Why? While Nxweb looks very promising, my first question would be 'Why should I use it over eg Nginx?' It would be helpful to have some direct comparison to other servers on the landing page. EDIT: Ok, there is a link to some odd benchmarks and it includes performance comparisons to Nginx and others which are not understandable (Nginx 141 req/s and Nxweb 200 / 121 req/s while it's not clear when 200 and when 121); mo…

Took me a bit of searching to figure out the 200/121 numbers. The answer: "first measurement is for inprocess handler, second is for inworker handler"

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#16

Post by geocar »

ktRolster wrote: post #6

A lot of ad-tech companies build ad-servers in C, because the latency is so crucial in that context.

Specifically it's garbage collection.

e.g. node.js has no problem getting 20k/sec per core, but a stall at the wrong time kills every pipelined HTTP request that follows (until you tear down the connection and restart it).

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#18

Post by rand1012 »

chrissnell wrote: post #14
glossyscr wrote: post #7

Why? While Nxweb looks very promising, my first question would be 'Why should I use it over eg Nginx?' It would be helpful to have some direct comparison to other servers on the landing page. EDIT: Ok, there is a link to some odd benchmarks and it includes performance comparisons to Nginx and others which are not understandable (Nginx 141 req/s and Nxweb 200 / 121 req/s while it's not clear when 200 and when 121); mo…

Those benchmarks are well and great but with HTTP/2 support in nginx, do they even matter? I'm reasonably certain that nginx will out-perform for the average client in real-world, TLS-enabled testing.

I want to use it on Raspberry Pi

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#19

Post by joosters »

They discount using CGI, which is fair enough, but why not use FastCGI? It's a sensible enough protocol, there are libraries for most languages and there's a good chance that your existing web server supports it.

Technically, there's no good reason why a FastCGI based system would be significantly slower than a custom reimplementation like this.

Re: Nxweb – Fast and Lightweight Web Server

#20

Post by faint_coder »

pjmlp wrote: post #17
ktRolster wrote: post #6

A lot of ad-tech companies build ad-servers in C, because the latency is so crucial in that context.

Or they don't know any better. I took part in a few projects that replaced high throughput servers handling mobile network traffic from C++ to Java.

Or maybe THEY don't know any better way to optimize/use C++ instead of switching to Java
Post reply on HN