
Cherokee Webserver, "The Fastest", Really? - rlander
http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/182/cherokee-webserver-the-fastest-really/
======
ck2
Any claims about "fastest webserver" also need to add the qualifier "free".

Because I believe litespeed is faster, though the free version has a
simultaneous connection limit.

It's even faster than nginx in some cases.

[http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2010/01/06/benchmark-
compariso...](http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2010/01/06/benchmark-comparison-
on-serving-simple-php-litespeed-vs-apache-vs-nginx/#post-173)

Also, litespeed is practically a drop-in replacement for apache since it can
obey _httpd.conf_ and _.htaccess_ files which no other webserver bothers to
try to do. You can be converted to it in less than an hour (optionally along
with apache in the background on another port). If you have a bunch of rewrite
rules, other webservers are a complete workout to convert to. (They've also
gone to great lengths to make it play nice with cpanel)

~~~
thibaut_barrere
I second that - one client of mine has been using the free version for years
to host a couple of rails app and are very happy with it.

For Rails work these days though, I'm using passenger with either nginx or
apache.

------
plantain
The author of g-wan appears to be quite paranoid about his competitors...

<http://gwan.ch/en_jihad.html> <http://gwan.ch/en_complexity.html>

~~~
zizzler
Being paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

~~~
zizzler
I mean if this <http://gwan.com/en_dns.html> happened to me I would be
paranoid too.

------
StavrosK
Forgive my ignorance, but when does this actually matter? My application can't
run anywhere near that speed, so time spent at the webserver level is less
than 1% of the total response...

For static files or cached pages, I can maybe understand the fuss.

------
adulau
"G-WAN is fully functional for an unlimited time at no cost for personal use,
individual use, non-profit use, academic use, commercial and non-commercial
use or any combination of these (no call-home, no spyware, no backdoor
included)."

G-WAN is proprietary software, using "C" servlet for writing extension and is
not very clear about the exact HTTP version supported.

On the other hand, Cherokee is free software (GNU General Public License),
supports many handlers, includes many modules like reverse proxy and has a
decent speed over Apache HTTPD.

Why would I pick the "The Fastest" when you have a full-featured, free,
standard HTTP server that is already "Fast enough"?

------
getsat
I care more about concurrency than "speed". nginx is better at concurrency
than Cherokee and most other webservers. Oh well.

~~~
raz0r
How is nginx' concurrency achieved? Does it use something like libev/libevent
?

~~~
piotrSikora
nginx uses native evented I/O provided by the operating system (epoll on
Linux, kqueue on *BSD, /dev/poll and event ports on Solaris, input/output
completion port on Windows).

libevent and libev provide abstraction layer for those mechanisms and unified
interface for all supported operating systems.

~~~
deno
> native evented I/O _API_ provided by operating system

I know it's just semantics but I recently learned that some people actually
believe that synchronous I/O API provided by OS is actually… well synchronous
I/O. Obviously there cannot be any synchronous I/O going on in any modern
operating system.

------
est
Gwan is using C based scripting, I guess security would be an issue if you are
writing too much website logic in C.

------
tghw
The benchmarks they link to are from 2008. Not sure what the fuss is about.

