Caddy compatibility for zeroserve: 3x throughput and 70% lower latency
52 points by losfair 3 hours ago | 11 comments
tln 49 minutes ago
No ACME! That is a dealbreaker
replyhttps://github.com/losfair/zeroserve/blob/main/CADDY_COMPAT....
augunrik 2 hours ago
I am surprised how well nginx holds up?!
replyphillipseamore 39 minutes ago
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.
replysmallerize 2 hours ago
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...
replycodys 52 minutes ago
zeroserve doesn't use the Linux kernel's eBPF runtime to run the eBPF it uses, so the constraints of the Linux kernel's eBPF runtime (chosen because of how the Linux kernel thinks about protecting the Linux kernel from user space) don't apply to zeroserve (or other tools that use the eBPF instruction set but don't use the Linux kernel's particular implementation)
replyzsoltkacsandi 2 hours ago
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?
reply
Very bizarre, never seen that before.
Thumbprints: