4 ms·

The graph is marked as 'Apache2 vs. nginx memory usage ' but that's not what it shows at all - it's 'Requests per second on Apachev2 vs nginx' - did you mean to

The graph is marked as 'Apache2 vs. nginx memory usage ' but that's not what it shows at all - it's 'Requests per second on Apachev2 vs nginx' - did you mean to show https://objects-us-west-1.dream.io/kbimages/images/Webserver_memory_graph.jpg https://objects-us-west-1.dream.io/kbimages/images/Webserver... instead?

n1try 10y ago
Yes, right, that was a mistake. Thank you very much!
richardwhiuk 10y ago
Also, this article is really odd. It starts with a performance based analysis comparison of a bunch of web servers, and then decides to add a third completely unknown option, and then decides it's better, based on it's configuration being 'better' (in a way that's not shown), despite it's performance being ~ 1/3 of the competitor....
- n1try 10y ago
  My goal was to point some attention to Caddy as well as to outline why I switched from nginx (as well as the tradeoff between simplicity and performance). Maybe you're right and mentioning Apache and IIS was confusing.
  - mtdewcmu 10y ago
    It wasn't that confusing, but I guess it's not clear what the takeaway should be from the article. Since you started off by talking about apache's memory usage, it would have made sense to include a graph showing Caddy's memory usage vs apache. Since neither apache nor Caddy can touch nginx in terms of performance, the tradeoff between nginx and Caddy is clear: speed vs ease of setup. It's not clear where Caddy falls relative to apache. You sort of explained why you didn't do this stuff (apache still doesn't support http2), but perhaps you could rewrite the conclusion and maybe make some guesses as to how apache and Caddy will compare, once apache gets http2? And try to answer the question -- "should I use Caddy now or wait for apache to support http2?"
    - richardwhiuk 10y ago
      It's not clear that Caddy wins on speed of setup though over nginx though. More that the author wanted something...different.
      - mtdewcmu 10y ago
        He might have wanted something written in a trendier language.
- snug 10y ago
  And there's no comparison of what he was using for NGINX config vs the Caddy config. He simply states that Caddy is easier to use with little acknowledgment of what the config would actually look like. Googling around for a Caddy file[0], it looks fairly similar, and not so much easier or harder to configure or understand that NGINX config. [0] https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile
  - mholt 10y ago
    Indeed, in some of my own benchmarks, Caddy performed better than nginx in recent versions of Go. (Using "out of the box" configurations, anyway.) I know tuning is possible, as it is with Caddy depending on your situation. There are so many dimensions to performance of a web server, though, and I don't give much weight to benchmarks. https://gist.github.com/mholt/3f613740ceb417bf63fa https://gist.github.com/mholt/3f613740ceb417bf63fa

n1try 10y ago

Yes, right, that was a mistake. Thank you very much!

richardwhiuk 10y ago

Also, this article is really odd. It starts with a performance based analysis comparison of a bunch of web servers, and then decides to add a third completely unknown option, and then decides it's better, based on it's configuration being 'better' (in a way that's not shown), despite it's performance being ~ 1/3 of the competitor....

n1try 10y ago
My goal was to point some attention to Caddy as well as to outline why I switched from nginx (as well as the tradeoff between simplicity and performance). Maybe you're right and mentioning Apache and IIS was confusing.
- mtdewcmu 10y ago
  It wasn't that confusing, but I guess it's not clear what the takeaway should be from the article. Since you started off by talking about apache's memory usage, it would have made sense to include a graph showing Caddy's memory usage vs apache. Since neither apache nor Caddy can touch nginx in terms of performance, the tradeoff between nginx and Caddy is clear: speed vs ease of setup. It's not clear where Caddy falls relative to apache. You sort of explained why you didn't do this stuff (apache still doesn't support http2), but perhaps you could rewrite the conclusion and maybe make some guesses as to how apache and Caddy will compare, once apache gets http2? And try to answer the question -- "should I use Caddy now or wait for apache to support http2?"
  - richardwhiuk 10y ago
    It's not clear that Caddy wins on speed of setup though over nginx though. More that the author wanted something...different.
    - mtdewcmu 10y ago
      He might have wanted something written in a trendier language.
snug 10y ago
And there's no comparison of what he was using for NGINX config vs the Caddy config. He simply states that Caddy is easier to use with little acknowledgment of what the config would actually look like. Googling around for a Caddy file[0], it looks fairly similar, and not so much easier or harder to configure or understand that NGINX config. [0] https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile
- mholt 10y ago
  Indeed, in some of my own benchmarks, Caddy performed better than nginx in recent versions of Go. (Using "out of the box" configurations, anyway.) I know tuning is possible, as it is with Caddy depending on your situation. There are so many dimensions to performance of a web server, though, and I don't give much weight to benchmarks. https://gist.github.com/mholt/3f613740ceb417bf63fa https://gist.github.com/mholt/3f613740ceb417bf63fa