I like the look of the site, and I found it to be quite speedy as well.
I use memcache on one of my sites, and never found the need for anything else.
Clearly, you felt there was an opportunity in that space, and maybe there is. But to me it wasn't obvious.
That may be a bit of a stepping stone. you're like memcache but...!
I don't know that 'faster' is the main target (though I could be wrong). Lots of sites seem to be quite happy with memcache. But if you can show a savings of x over memcache due to server resources or speed, etc. you might be on to something.
I think the speed is always a feature, but at the same time, caching always feels more interesting in terms of a proxy. For example, where I work, we're able to use one server and proxy massive amounts of traffic to a cluster of services. I know we paid for this tool and it has proved to be worth the money. That said, it does a great deal more than just caching where even if there were a faster caching solution, I'm not sure it would be worth paying for.
I hope that makes sense since simply stating "there are already those kinds of programs available" does mean that there isn't room for improvement. The evolution of lighttpd, nginx and cherokee all suggest that people found apache limiting in some way.
As for the service it did feel pretty darn fast, so kudos for that. More use cases or a more general caching proxy/load balancer might be something more people could consider worth paying for but that is just my own thought.
I use memcache on one of my sites, and never found the need for anything else.
Clearly, you felt there was an opportunity in that space, and maybe there is. But to me it wasn't obvious.
That may be a bit of a stepping stone. you're like memcache but...!
I don't know that 'faster' is the main target (though I could be wrong). Lots of sites seem to be quite happy with memcache. But if you can show a savings of x over memcache due to server resources or speed, etc. you might be on to something.