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

Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

su3.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#11

Post by phillipseamore »

augunrik wrote: post #4

I am surprised how well nginx holds up?!

Why? It's one of the most optimized HTTP servers ever. Anything that claims beating nginx in benchmarks should be treated with high suspicion. I think these zeroserve numbers are likely accurate but it doesn't have the features and module ecosystem of nginx so the margins aren't worth it for me.

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#12

Post by jorl17 »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #10

Anyone else got a really weird Chorme pop-up asking which cert to use for su3.io:443? Very bizarre, never seen that before. Thumbprints: - 60949a09aab8677f87a0b9eda7099a03ca510fb3 - 1b146798f0dc93773247e86312f1b730c4eeebb3

Same on Zen

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#13

Post by linsomniac »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #10

Anyone else got a really weird Chorme pop-up asking which cert to use for su3.io:443? Very bizarre, never seen that before. Thumbprints: - 60949a09aab8677f87a0b9eda7099a03ca510fb3 - 1b146798f0dc93773247e86312f1b730c4eeebb3

Same on Arc

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#14

Post by embedding-shape »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #10

Anyone else got a really weird Chorme pop-up asking which cert to use for su3.io:443? Very bizarre, never seen that before. Thumbprints: - 60949a09aab8677f87a0b9eda7099a03ca510fb3 - 1b146798f0dc93773247e86312f1b730c4eeebb3

Here it attempts to read my personal certificate that sits in the browser that I use for filling my taxes and do government stuff, suspicious indeed.

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#15

Post by sunaookami »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #10

Anyone else got a really weird Chorme pop-up asking which cert to use for su3.io:443? Very bizarre, never seen that before. Thumbprints: - 60949a09aab8677f87a0b9eda7099a03ca510fb3 - 1b146798f0dc93773247e86312f1b730c4eeebb3

Same on Firefox

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#16

Post by KronisLV »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #10

Anyone else got a really weird Chorme pop-up asking which cert to use for su3.io:443? Very bizarre, never seen that before. Thumbprints: - 60949a09aab8677f87a0b9eda7099a03ca510fb3 - 1b146798f0dc93773247e86312f1b730c4eeebb3

> Very bizarre, never seen that before.

For my own stuff that's not meant for a wider audience, I sometimes use mTLS in front of my apps, alongside self-signed certs (my own CA) that shouldn't show up in certificate transparency logs.

This site also seems to be requesting a certificate from the user. Normally you probably don't want that for public facing resources.

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#17

Post by augunrik »

phillipseamore wrote: post #11
augunrik wrote: post #4

I am surprised how well nginx holds up?!

Why? It's one of the most optimized HTTP servers ever. Anything that claims beating nginx in benchmarks should be treated with high suspicion. I think these zeroserve numbers are likely accurate but it doesn't have the features and module ecosystem of nginx so the margins aren't worth it for me.

Because it passes more boundaries and stuff. But hey, I didn’t code a Webserver so far - so what do I know. :D

AFAIK eBPF can be hardware offloaded. If you have the use case.

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#19

Post by __natty__ »

codingjoe wrote: post #18

"Caddy compatible" minus everything that matters, like ACME and plugins. And NGINX still steals the show. Not everything needs to be rewritten.

Same thoughts. If I need more performant caddy alternative I'm going to use nginx at least it has some extras.

Re: Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

#20

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

Interesting. Trying to get some of the performance advantages of TUX/IIS without as much insecurity makes sense for some big players, I guess.

The usual 3400 lines lock file and AGENTS.md raise some questions about the aforementioned security, though.

Post reply on HN