3 ms·

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

• 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.