[selectnull]

There is something funny going on in the benchmarking section. If you look at the charts, they don't benchmark the same servers in 4 examples.

Each of the 4 charts have data for Ferron and Caddy, but then include data for lighttpd, apache, nginx and traefik selectively for each chart, such that each chart has exactly four selected servers.

That doesn't inspire confidence.

[troupo]

> That doesn't inspire confidence.

The problems start even higher on the page in "The problem with popular web servers" section that doesn't inspire confidence either.

From "nginx configs can become verbose" (because nginx is not "just" a web server [1]) to non-sequiturs like "Many popular web servers (including Apache and NGINX) are written in programming languages and use libraries that aren't designed for memory safety. This caused many issues, such as Heartbleed in OpenSSL"

[1] Sidetrack: https://x.com/isamlambert/status/1979337340096262619

Until ~2015, GitHub Pages hosted over 2 million websites on 2 servers with a multi-million-line nginx.conf, edited and reloaded per deploy. This worked incredibly well, with github.io ranking as the 140th most visited domain on the web at the time.

Nginx performance is fine (and probably that's why it's not included in the static page "benchmark")

[sim7c00]

its funny he mentions unsafe code in apache and nginx and then complains about openSSL bug (one thats more than 10 years old btw).

if this is a sense of the logic put into the application, no memory safe language will save it from the terrible bugs!

[crote]

It's also using their own benchmarking tool, rather than one of the dozens of existing tools. Doesn't mean they are cheating, but it is a bit suspicious.