Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Caddy webserver goes south
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Caddy webserver goes south

https://caddyserver.com/blog/accouncing-caddy-commercial-licenses.html

Caddy-Sponsors HTTP Header

As of version 0.10.9, Caddy emits an HTTP response header, Caddy-Sponsors, which is similar to the Server header that Caddy already has, except that this one credits our sponsors who make it possible to keep Caddy free for personal use. This header cannot be removed by the Caddyfile, and its presence is required by the non-commercial EULA. This requirement is waived by the commercial license, so the header is not present in those binaries.

nginx still there for you :)

Thanked by 2rm_ Chronic

We only support unsupported OS!

«13

Comments

  • Any interest I once had in this project is pretty much nullified. The fact they want $100 for 2 users, welp.. Interestingly enough, they're claiming this EULA/etc is only for binaries, and that the project itself is still under the Apache license.

    Wonder how long it'll be before it gets yanked from prebuilt distribution archives. Actually- does anyone bundle Caddy?

  • I saw that too, TBH alot of "open source" company have been doing that, they start off open source and free and end up making a pretty decent software then BAM they do stuff like this, mongoose web server did something similar although not as expensive as caddy lol.

    TBH there is a market for this and since they basically did not make much money when they were purely open source can you honestly blame them for wanting to switch but then there is the problem of people who submitted to the project and got ziltch.

    I wish everything was open and free but that is not the world we live in, you need to make profit to succeed. Personally I can understand when someone makes this choice but I also see why this can be considered messed up.

    Signature goes here.

  • jarjar Provider

    1 text response header that no user will see...

    Clearly devastating :P

    Thanked by 2vimalware Hxxx
  • RhysRhys Member, Provider

    https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2

    Rip another decent open source project.

    Thanked by 1netomx
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited September 2017

    @jarland said:
    Clearly devastating :P

    You forgot that the devs and people related to the project are assholes. Being that "Caddy" was well known as an automobile before YAFW (yet another freakin webserver) existed, I'd like for GM to say "Time for you to rename your shit" in response.


    @Rhys said:
    https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2

    Rip another decent open source project.

    Edit: Hah. You saw that too, huh?

    Thanked by 1Rhys
  • Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?

  • jarjar Provider
    edited September 2017

    WSS said: You forgot that the devs and people related to the project are assholes

    Right, one should take no part in providing friendly notice about pending trademark violation. Not everyone wants to spend their time doing something that doesn't put food on the table, you know. The notion that this makes them an asshole would actually make you an asshole if you suggested it ;)

    Thanked by 1J1021
  • This is an asshole comment

    I get needing to find funding, the project I'm on takes 60 hours a week to handle, and the amount I get is $100USD or so. But I wouldn't go on Twitter and pop off on the users and potential users to say "You're all cheap so screw you."

    Thanked by 4WSS Rhys Aidan fan

    Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?

  • As much as I love Caddy there's no way I'll be paying that kind of money for it. Currently running it on a couple of servers and I'd rather switch back to nginx than paying over $250/month.

    I can understand they need to make some money but their pricing is ridiculous.

    Thanked by 2WSS Rhys
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited September 2017

    @jarland said:
    Right, one should take no part in providing friendly notice about pending trademark violation. Not everyone wants to spend their time doing something that doesn't put food on the table, you know. The notion that this makes them an asshole would actually make you an asshole if you suggested it ;)

    The guy forked a Github Project, and guess what the default name it takes when forking. If they wanted to try to copyright "Caddy", I'd certainly hope someone would contest it as the term has been in use for much longer than the YAFW project.

    The way the initial person was acting to some random guy on the same platform for daring to fork the project and not rename it, then piled on by the subsequent douches- I know how I'd handle it. I'd stop committing to the project. Some people just don't deserve to get free OSS development for their software that they are making money from. :)


    Obviously, it annoyed this guy enough to decide to make "Wedge" and remove the sponsor headers. It did not appear that Wedge was initially existing just to annoy the Caddy guys.

    Thanked by 5Rhys MikeA netomx iKeyZ dnom
  • RhysRhys Member, Provider

    @WSS said:

    @jarland said:
    Right, one should take no part in providing friendly notice about pending trademark violation. Not everyone wants to spend their time doing something that doesn't put food on the table, you know. The notion that this makes them an asshole would actually make you an asshole if you suggested it ;)

    The guy forked a Github Project, and guess what the default name it takes when forking. If they wanted to try to copyright "Caddy", I'd certainly hope someone would contest it as the term has been in use for much longer than the YAFW project.

    The way the initial person was acting to some random guy on the same platform for daring to fork the project and not rename it, then piled on by the subsequent douches- I know how I'd handle it. I'd stop committing to the project. Some people just don't deserve to get free OSS development for their software that they are making money from. :)

    Good thing Github's terms of service cover this instance so Caddy is in the wrong. Seems Matt also want's be a knob on twitter:

    [1]

    Thanked by 1netomx
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited September 2017

    Yep. GitHub exists specifically to address a simple ability to fork/et al. Matt is just a dickhead.

    Here's a response from Matt regrading some items that were on GitHub that were used for building Caddy:

    Just note that those repositories were never licensed for external use, not even under an OSS license. We close sourced the repos because they were only used as internal Caddy infrastructure, not anything else. (I am the only person who uses the releaser.) The maintenance burden is lower to close the source on these ancillary repos.

    So, now he's trying to go back against GitHub's terms of service again, and is claiming that these support tools should not be used- when he's the one who comitted them.

    Dick. Head.

  • edited September 2017

    Wow, minimum license for 2 users/instances (dev boxes count as instances) is $100/mo billed annually. (Introductory, so buy now before it goes up!) https://caddyserver.com/pricing

    if you have 2 instances of Caddy in production and 3 web developers using Caddy locally to build your website, that's 5 instances.

    Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?

  • A fully comped out HTTP(s|2) server is a huge project. Nginx has it covered, a bit like libcurl has HTTP(s|2) and all manner of other protocols well-covered.

    Thanked by 1netomx
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited September 2017

    You guys are aware that you can just enable mod_http2 in Apache, right? :D

    Thanked by 1netomx
  • IonSwitch_StanIonSwitch_Stan Member, Host Rep

    1/4 price of comparable servers

    What do they consider comparable?

  • @IonSwitch_Stan said:
    1/4 price of comparable servers

    What do they consider comparable?

    Hard to say.. I don't know of any other webservers written in go.

  • @IonSwitch_Stan said:
    1/4 price of comparable servers

    What do they consider comparable?

    litespeed maybe?

    We only support unsupported OS!

  • Very sad about this. The binary distribution is now either adware or commercial. The build process, especially with all the plugins, is not entirely trivial. RIP.

  • sinsin Member
    edited September 2017

    WSS said: Dick. Head.

    I just read some of his tweets...he comes off as a complete douche.

  • While everyone takes up the issue with HTTP headers, this is a bigger deal:

    Wedge was created following the announcement that sponsor headers would be added to HTTP responses, and official binaries would no longer be able to be used for commercial purposes.

    This is no longer free software, and doesn't even qualify as open source anymore.

  • @WSS said:

    @jarland said:
    Clearly devastating :P

    I'd like for GM to say "Time for you to rename your shit" in response.

    There btw also is a VW Caddy Transporter.

    Not that it matters, because trademarks are generally only really interesting if youre in the same business. Web servers and cars arent. You might remember Apple Records and Apple Inc. The former sued the latter, but it was ruled they werent in the same business as one was in music and the other technology.

    Thanked by 2WSS netomx
  • Very sad to see Caddy server go down. No longer having a Free license is a deal breaker.

  • lol, RIP.

    Thanked by 1Aidan

    I am no longer active here, find me at https://talk.lowendspirit.com (Just like LET without the scams)

  • I'd have less trouble getting approval to spend $12500/yr on 5 Nginx Plus licenses than $3000/yr on Caddy.

    Thanked by 2ehab elwebmaster
  • I always thought Caddy was a project of some guy with too much free time who wanted an idiot proof way to deploy a webserver with a let's encrypt certificate out of the box.

    Thanked by 2ehab Chronic

    End of line.

  • jiggawattzjiggawattz Member
    edited September 2017

    rm_ said: This is no longer free software, and doesn't even qualify as open source anymore.

    The code in the git repository is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 which is most certainly a free software license. There is nothing stopping Individuals from forking this project and continuing.

    Tion said: I always thought Caddy was a project of some guy with too much free time who wanted an idiot proof way to deploy a webserver with a let's encrypt certificate out of the box.

    Sure - then he graduated. Time to get a fucking job. With a paycheck.

    Thanked by 4ehab Hxxx sarah default
  • HxxxHxxx Member
    edited September 2017

    It is what it is.. No dono? No problem it will be commercialized.

    Edit: So it is 100/mo for 2 caddy server instances, not two users. That wording needs some work.

  • @jarland said:

    WSS said: You forgot that the devs and people related to the project are assholes

    Right, one should take no part in providing friendly notice about pending trademark violation. Not everyone wants to spend their time doing something that doesn't put food on the table, you know. The notion that this makes them an asshole would actually make you an asshole if you suggested it ;)

    There was no reason to do so, it was a false violation and is completely fine to do under GitHub;

    https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2#issuecomment-329336643

  • @rm_ said:

    Wedge was created following the announcement that sponsor headers would be added to HTTP responses, and official binaries would no longer be able to be used for commercial purposes.

    Note that this is for the "official binaries" only. This isn't horribly uncommon. Theo de Raadt used to refuse to release ISO images because people wouldn't pay $20 for a CD twice a year.. and the BSD license is a lot less restrictive than any GPL ever created.

    When I saw that, and his attempted attack on someone who wanted to rebuild his own binaries, though, I knew precisely where he was intending to go.

    The fact that he still hosts these "official binaries" on GitHub under a public license- I wonder just how difficult it would be to bundle them with a hex editor of your choice and change the header if you decide to do so. This would be a direct violation of his new EULA, but being that it's still being offered publicly on GitHub, he's already shown that he doesn't follow others' rules or restrictions.


    @jiggawattz said:
    The code in the git repository is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 which is most certainly a free software license. There is nothing stopping Individuals from forking this project and continuing.

    He's already begun removing tools and making things private that he considers not to be part of the project. This is how it begins. Apple had almost completely opensourced Darwin at one point, and then closed it up tighter than a Mormon seeing the golden tablets of Jedediah Smith in their minds' eye. With several of these license terms, all they have to return is how they hooked X into Y, rather than any major changes.

    See also: KDE's KHTML (WebKit) rendering engine and Safari, the initial GNU CC based ports for MacOS X (without source availability as it was still "beta"), et al.

    The GPL, and indeed, BSD don't protect a project very well if the authors have gone rogue. You're left with whatever the last, least-tained is, for the most part.

    Tion said: I always thought Caddy was a project of some guy with too much free time who wanted an idiot proof way to deploy a webserver with a let's encrypt certificate out of the box.

    Sure - then he graduated. Time to get a fucking job. With a paycheck.

    His Twitter shows that he's still attending school when not being a snarky little fuck on the internet.

    Thanked by 3iKeyZ maverickp Chronic
  • Life happen. You are always welcome to put some effort on a project, open source it and keep working on it for free. Is normal for open source projects to eventually commercialize.

    @WSS said:

    @rm_ said:

    Wedge was created following the announcement that sponsor headers would be added to HTTP responses, and official binaries would no longer be able to be used for commercial purposes.

    Note that this is for the "official binaries" only. This isn't horribly uncommon. Theo de Raadt used to refuse to release ISO images because people wouldn't pay $20 for a CD twice a year.. and the BSD license is a lot less restrictive than any GPL ever created.

    When I saw that, and his attempted attack on someone who wanted to rebuild his own binaries, though, I knew precisely where he was intending to go.

    The fact that he still hosts these "official binaries" on GitHub under a public license- I wonder just how difficult it would be to bundle them with a hex editor of your choice and change the header if you decide to do so. This would be a direct violation of his new EULA, but being that it's still being offered publicly on GitHub, he's already shown that he doesn't follow others' rules or restrictions.


    @jiggawattz said:
    The code in the git repository is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 which is most certainly a free software license. There is nothing stopping Individuals from forking this project and continuing.

    He's already begun removing tools and making things private that he considers not to be part of the project. This is how it begins. Apple had almost completely opensourced Darwin at one point, and then closed it up tighter than a Mormon seeing the golden tablets of Jedediah Smith in their minds' eye. With several of these license terms, all they have to return is how they hooked X into Y, rather than any major changes.

    See also: KDE's KHTML (WebKit) rendering engine and Safari, the initial GNU CC based ports for MacOS X (without source availability as it was still "beta"), et al.

    The GPL, and indeed, BSD don't protect a project very well if the authors have gone rogue. You're left with whatever the last, least-tained is, for the most part.

    Tion said: I always thought Caddy was a project of some guy with too much free time who wanted an idiot proof way to deploy a webserver with a let's encrypt certificate out of the box.

    Sure - then he graduated. Time to get a fucking job. With a paycheck.

    His Twitter shows that he's still attending school when not being a snarky little fuck on the internet.

  • @Hxxx said:
    Life happen. You are always welcome to put some effort on a project, open source it and keep working on it for free. Is normal for open source projects to eventually commercialize.

    I have no idea why you bothered quoting my entire post- or, indeed, responding to me when I was just illustrating how you can get away with not following the GPL license (legally).

    The time-tested and true means is usually to have at least two forks on a project/product, and to do work on the commercial product with security backports and possible features added to the GPL product later (even if it's trvial to do both unless you're horribly sloppy).

    Matt has shown direct intent to make it difficult for anyone to produce non-official binaries of Caddy. That is a very Theo thing to do- even though Theo has calmed down significantly since the late 90s.

  • WSS said: The time-tested and true means is usually to have at least two forks on a project/product, and to do work on the commercial product with security backports and possible features added to the GPL product later (even if it's trvial to do both unless you're horribly sloppy).

    This is indeed a good strategy. Virtuozzo/OpenVZ does this well.

    I'm sure someone - a student maybe or some dedicated devs - will fork Caddy and continue development.

    Matt has shown direct intent to make it difficult for anyone to produce non-official binaries of Caddy.

    Flaming someone on Twitter who wants to abet free-riding is not direct intent to sabotage non-official binaries. If you are a struggling artist, how happy are you when your fans just download your music for nothing?

  • eva2000eva2000 Member
    edited September 2017

    While expensive for licensing, totally understand that part.

    But using HTTP header as a means for it isn't my cup of tea when there are known performance overhead hit as you add more headers to Caddy. Though you can build from source yourself to get around the HTTP sponsor header requirement https://caddy.community/t/caddy-commercial-sponsor-header-clarification/2716

    But right now building from source is sort of broken too https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1843.

    I think most personal usage folks using Caddy wouldn't care about that as they'd just use free version/personal with HTTP sponsor header intact anyway not knowing or caring about the performance hit as you add more HTTP headers.

    For HTTP/2 HTTPS loads, Caddy is ~1/3rd the performance of Nginx. So you'd need 3-4x Caddy servers to match the performance of 1x Nginx server for HTTP/2 based HTTPS. So for Commercial licensing you'd need 5/server license at discounted US$250/month which reverts to 4x250 = US$1,000 month once introductory licensing ends. That equates to $3,000/yr discounted or $12,000/yr for 5 commercial licenses if you only need 4 ?

    Compare Nginx commercial licensing for 1-4 servers https://www.nginx.com/products/pricing/

    • Nginx Basic $2,500/yr per server
    • Nginx Pro $3,500/yr per server
    • Nginx Enterprise $5,000/yr per server

    If I need 4x Caddy servers to match 1x Nginx servers performance the comparative cost is:

    • Caddy 5 instance license = $3,000/yr discounted or $12,000/yr normal price
    • Nginx 1 server Basic license = $2,500/yr, $3,500/yr Pro or $5,000/yr Enterprise.

    If I need 8x Caddy servers to match 2x Nginx servers performance the comparative cost is:

    • Caddy 10 instance license = $6,000/yr discounted or $24,000/yr normal price
    • Nginx 2 server Basic license = $5,000/yr, $7,000/yr Pro or $10,000/yr Enterprise.

    From financial and performance perspective, doesn't make sense unfortunately.

    Thanked by 1Hxxx
    * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
    * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
  • @jiggawattz said:
    Flaming someone on Twitter who wants to abet free-riding is not direct intent to sabotage non-official binaries. If you are a struggling artist, how happy are you when your fans just download your music for nothing?

    That's not at all what I have illustrated in this very thread as being hostile towards other devs, and most artists deserve to starve. Please look up.

    Thanked by 1switsys
  • This is why we like you. Smart.

    @eva2000 said:
    While expensive for licensing, totally understand that part.

    But using HTTP header as a means for it isn't my cup of tea when there are known performance overhead hit as you add more headers to Caddy. Though you can build from source yourself to get around the HTTP sponsor header requirement https://caddy.community/t/caddy-commercial-sponsor-header-clarification/2716

    But right now building from source is sort of broken too https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1843.

    I think most personal usage folks using Caddy wouldn't care about that as they'd just use free version/personal with HTTP sponsor header intact anyway not knowing or caring about the performance hit as you add more HTTP headers. For HTTP/2 HTTPS loads,

    Caddy is ~1/3rd the performance of Nginx. So you'd need 3-4x Caddy servers to match the performance of 1x Nginx server for HTTP/2 based HTTPS. So for Commercial licensing you'd need 5/server license at discounted US$250/month which reverts to 4x250 = US$1,000 month once introductory licensing ends. That equates to $3,000/yr discounted or $12,000/yr for 5 commercial licenses if you only need 4 ?

    Compare Nginx commercial licensing for 1-4 servers https://www.nginx.com/products/pricing/

    • Nginx Basic $2,500/yr per server
    • Nginx Pro $3,500/yr per server
    • Nginx Enterprise $5,000/yr per server

    If I need 4x Caddy servers to match 1x Nginx servers performance the comparative cost is:

    • Caddy 5 instance license = $3,000/yr discounted or $12,000/yr normal price
    • Nginx 1 server Basic license = $2,500/yr, $3,500/yr Pro or $5,000/yr Enterprise.

    If I need 8x Caddy servers to match 2x Nginx servers performance the comparative cost is:

    • Caddy 10 instance license = $6,000/yr discounted or $24,000/yr normal price
    • Nginx 2 server Basic license = $5,00/yr, $7,000/yr Pro or $10,000/yr Enterprise.

    From financial and performance perspective, doesn't make sense unfortunately.

    Thanked by 2eva2000 netomx
  • Hxxx said: This is why we like you. Smart.

    cheers - I'm a logics guy :)

    Stevie said: I saw that too, TBH alot of "open source" company have been doing that, they start off open source and free and end up making a pretty decent software then BAM they do stuff like this, mongoose web server did something similar although not as expensive as caddy lol.

    There's better ways to do it like Nginx vs Nginx Plus, their commercial version just adds more value with advanced options and features compared to open source. Though I guess Caddy are trying to replicating that with the Private Plugin Hosting etc.

    Thanked by 1mholt
    * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
    * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
  • jarjar Provider
    edited September 2017

    Would like to see the performance hit from one small header. Suspect it would be quite acceptable, if one preferred the web server for any reason.

    Granted, would like to see the benefits as well since basically no one will see it.

    Thanked by 1mholt
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited September 2017

    @jarland said:
    Would like to see the performance hit from one small header. Suspect it would be quite acceptable, if one preferred the web server for any reason.

    According to @eva2000, it's already -66% of an nginx service (I have not installed nor tested this numeric). As you know, other than adding trivial overhead which is possibly 1k (if ever reaching that), is easy to just add to ones' existing traffic.

    The single "header" is NOT what everyone is annoyed by, for what it's worth. You can continue to pretend that's why everyone's up in arms- but it isn't.

    The changing of the licensing is just pure greed. The fact that the new license denies the abilities of a commercial entity to use this product at all without a license is going to alienate the people who actually like/want to use this product.

    Their pricing tier does not make any sense- especially for a product that isn't proven to be better than anything else on the market (and is evidently much slower).

    Matt's trying to stall/block other developers from being able to build from a fork of the existing source tree tends to be what has annoyed most developers that I am aware of.

  • And now one of the sites he's included in the "This free server is supported by:" header, Minio, has asked him to remove their company from it. https://github.com/mholt/caddy/pull/1866 (abperiasamy)

    Thanked by 4netomx sarah MikePT sin

    Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?

  • I wonder how sponsors will feel if the server was serving some kind of illegal content. "This server is supported by: " :)

    Thanked by 2netomx default
  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited September 2017

    eva2000 said: For HTTP/2 HTTPS loads, Caddy is ~1/3rd the performance of Nginx.

    Really? So what is even the point to bother with it in the first place.

    In any case, I suppose as long as it is needed by someone, there will be a fully Free and OSS fork (Wedge now), folding in all the useful changes and updates, while removing all the annoyances and providing official unencumbered binaries. With time most users may even migrate to that. This all is just FOSS working as intended.

  • WSS said: According to @eva2000, it's already -66% of an nginx service (I have not installed nor tested this numeric). As you know, other than adding trivial overhead which is possibly 1k (if ever reaching that), is easy to just add to ones' existing traffic.

    misunderstood Caddy even before HTTP header performance hits, already runs at ~33% of Nginx performance. Adding additional HTTP headers will lower that somewhat more ~5-10% more.

    All benchmarks are at https://community.centminmod.com/threads/caddy-http-2-server-benchmarks.5170/

    Thanked by 1netomx
    * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
    * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
  • eva2000 said: Adding additional HTTP headers will lower that somewhat more ~5-10% more.

    That's quite hard to believe from a purely programmatic standpoint.

    As an aside, interesting to note that with Nginx you cannot adapt the 'Server:' HTTP header. It's a hardwired thing.

  • eva2000 said: already runs at ~33% of Nginx performance

    Why would anyone want to use Caddy, let alone pay for it?

  • eva2000eva2000 Member
    edited September 2017

    @ricardo said:

    eva2000 said: Adding additional HTTP headers will lower that somewhat more ~5-10% more.

    That's quite hard to believe from a purely programmatic standpoint.

    As an aside, interesting to note that with Nginx you cannot adapt the 'Server:' HTTP header. It's a hardwired thing.

    issue happens on both h2o and caddy web servers from my tests but not nginx
    https://forum.caddyserver.com/t/any-performance-overhead-as-you-add-more-headers-under-http-2/403/3

    h2o reported issue https://github.com/h2o/h2o/issues/240

    Low concurrency tests at 10 concurrent users and 100 requests

    • Caddy 0.9 HTTP/2 HTTPS with headers = finished in 55.63ms, 1797.46 req/s, 2.43MB/s
    • Caddy 0.9 HTTP/2 HTTPS with without headers = finished in 48.52ms, 2060.92 req/s, 2.75MB/s
    • Centmin Mod Nginx 1.11.3 HTTP/2 HTTPS (2 cpus) = finished in 25.92ms, 3857.58 req/s, 5.99MB/s
    • Centmin Mod Nginx 1.11.3 HTTP/2 HTTPS (4 cpus) = finished in 22.39ms, 4465.68 req/s, 6.93MB/s

    Higher concurrency tests at 100 concurrent users and 1000 requests

    • Caddy 0.9 HTTP/2 HTTPS with headers = finished in 324.30ms, 3083.56 req/s, 4.17MB/s
    • Caddy 0.9 HTTP/2 HTTPS without headers = finished in 303.17ms, 3298.46 req/s, 4.41MB/s
    • Centmin Mod Nginx 1.11.3 HTTP/2 HTTPS (2 cpus) = finished in 228.77ms, 4371.15 req/s, 6.78MB/s
    • Centmin Mod Nginx 1.11.3 HTTP/2 HTTPS (4 cpus) = finished in 195.44ms, 5116.69 req/s, 7.94MB/s

    Even higher concurrency tests at 2000 concurrent users and 25000 requests

    • Caddy 0.9 HTTP/2 HTTPS with headers = finished in 6.16s, 4058.36 req/s, 5.47MB/s
    • Centmin Mod Nginx 1.11.3 HTTP/2 HTTPS (4 cpus) = finished in 3.21s, 7795.35 req/s, 12.09MB/s
    * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
    * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
  • FYI, Caddy's new http.cache proxy cache plugin helps with raising Caddy performance but still behind Nginx. See benchmarks I did at https://caddy.community/t/announce-new-http-cache-plugin/2429/10

    * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
    * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
  • HxxxHxxx Member
    edited September 2017

    Is quite hard to beat serverpilot.io stack which combines apache with nginx and a few other relevant technologies. Heck is already hard enough to beat Nginx alone... Why would anyone code a new web servers, make it open source then try to monetize it when is a lot slower than the alternatives?

    Reason: Hipsters.

  • @ricardo You can change the server header with the "Extra Headers" module for NGINX.

    Thanked by 2ricardo yomero
  • @Aidan said:

    eva2000 said: already runs at ~33% of Nginx performance

    Why would anyone want to use Caddy, let alone pay for it?

    Becouse installation and configuration takes a couple of seconds? On top of that it handles your certificates for you. Ideal for dev stacks. Would I be prepared to pay for it? No. With their pricing it would make more sense to fork it myself and hire a programmer to maintain it.

Sign In or Register to comment.