4 ms·
To be fair, that and being faster than both nginx and lighthttpd. I don't know anything about it but to say its only claim to fame is the web admin isn't quite
by zzzmarcus 17y ago
To be fair, that and being faster than both nginx and lighthttpd. I don't know anything about it but to say its only claim to fame is the web admin isn't quite accurate.
- mahmud 17y agoI would like to see some benchmarks, please. My experience is that Cherokee is a pet httpd for a few devout newbs who find Apache to heavy on Windows XP, and pretty much nothing else. Saying it's faster than nginx is a big claim, and I would like to see its proxying, load-balancing, URL rewriting, and big file serving performance. For starters.
- audidude 17y agohttp://www.cherokee-project.com/benchmarks.html http://www.cherokee-project.com/benchmarks.html pretty easy to find them.
- audidude 17y agoif you work for a company where writing extensions to the server is common-place, i would say the code quality of cherokee is a strong feature as well.
- z8000 17y agoCherokee also tries to use HTTP 1.1 keepalive to upstream processes. NGiNX uses HTTP 1.0. I doubt this matters in most use cases however.