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

21–30 of 66 posts

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

#21

Post by cmgbhm »

embedding-shape wrote: post #14
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.

That’s likely just the side effect of supporting mtls. Mutual TLS came around at the same time as Microsoft did implicit network auth. Seemed magical at the time and so hare brained for eons of problems. The user side tls never caught on in most circles and still has the ancient sharp edges

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

#22

Post by mook »

embedding-shape wrote: post #14
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.

That's because the client certificate interface in browsers is supremely dumb. It always just lists all certificates you have, with very little context in the UI, and hopes that's good enough. I believe that's part of the reason client certificates are not poplar; having actual users deal with that is terrible, and the browsers (in practice, Chrome because of its overwhelming market share) isn't incentivized to fix it.

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

#25

Post by someothherguyy »

augunrik wrote: post #17
phillipseamore wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But hey, I didn’t code a Webserver so far - so what do I know

If you limit the scope, its worth doing and might not take as much effort as you might think. You could possibly find some enjoyment and learn a few things doing so.

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

#26

Post by keynha »

zsoltkacsandi wrote: post #3

From a technical standpoint, these are always impressive projects, but I've always wondered: has anyone ever encountered a use case where the Caddy was the bottleneck?

For most apps the backend is slower than the proxy by a wide margin, so Caddy is nowhere near the bottleneck. Where it flips is high connection churn, since TLS handshakes are the expensive part and a flood of short lived connections without session resumption burns proxy CPU well before steady state proxying does. Very high RPS of tiny responses is the other case, where allocation and header parsing start to show.

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

#28

Post by miladyincontrol »

augunrik wrote: post #4

I am surprised how well nginx holds up?!

I mean, nginx dang well should? This is just an incredibly synthetic http(s)/1.1 test for what its worth.

Like you totally could turn off garbage collection for caddy especially since this is only testing incredibly short single response queries that would never need GC. Shockingly you would actually get better performance than either nginx or zeroserve, but like the uselessness of this benchmark it'd mean nothing to the real world usage of these web servers.

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

#29

Post by 4ndrewl »

Thaxll wrote: post #24

Another vibe coded, dead in 6 month Rust project. People that trully need performance are not going to use a random server that has 0 support/ track record.

Never mind cooldowns for dependencies, we need cooldowns for these adhd vibe projects.

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

#30

Post by ianm218 »

Thaxll wrote: post #24

Another vibe coded, dead in 6 month Rust project. People that trully need performance are not going to use a random server that has 0 support/ track record.

Isn't there a chicken and egg problem where projects need to start with 0 track record? Nginx had zero track record at one point as well
Post reply on HN