Cherokee Webserver, "The Fastest", Really?

by rlander on 3/13/2011, 8:13 AM with 14 comments
  • by ck2 on 3/13/2011, 10:49 AM

    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...

    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)

  • by plantain on 3/13/2011, 9:38 AM

    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

  • by StavrosK on 3/13/2011, 1:13 PM

    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.

  • by adulau on 3/13/2011, 10:50 AM

    "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"?

  • by getsat on 3/13/2011, 9:29 AM

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

  • by est on 3/13/2011, 9:38 AM

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

  • by tghw on 3/13/2011, 3:56 PM

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