HN

Need help?
<- Back
Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency

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

losfair

Comments (22)

  • 1a527dd5
    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
  • codingjoe
    "Caddy compatible" minus everything that matters, like ACME and plugins. And NGINX still steals the show. Not everything needs to be rewritten.
  • tln
  • augunrik
    I am surprised how well nginx holds up?!
  • Thaxll
    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.
  • smallerize
    I still think of eBPF as not being Turing-complete. There is still a complexity limit in the verifier. Even if someone did implement Game of Life by having the program set a timer to run itself. https://isovalent.com/blog/post/ebpf-yes-its-turing-complete...
  • zsoltkacsandi
    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?
  • dshat
    No thanks
  • 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.
  • nullstyle
    Fudge, I really need to carve out time today to play with zeroserve. Very cool stuff