Hi, author here - a few critical pieces of this, like async-ebpf, were written long before those coding agents were released. I use AI assistance a lot when creating zeroserve itself, but I manually check AI output and take responsibility for it :)
replyHappy to hear, I hope the tool can prove itself to a wider audience then.
replyif the point is to avoid the lua-issue on nginx, how do you expect people will implement things like geoip, request content match post ssl termination, etc?
replyGiven the benchmarks:
replySmall static file (174 B) - the bread and butter of static sites:
server req/s p99
zeroserve 36,681 5.4 ms
nginx 31,226 7.8 ms
Caddy 12,830 22 ms
zeroserve serves small files about 17% faster than nginx on a single core, with a tighter tail. HTML pages, small JSON, CSS - this is the case zeroserve is tuned for.
Large static file (100 KB):
server req/s throughput p99
zeroserve 8,000 782 MB/s 22 ms
nginx 7,600 773 MB/s 28 ms
Caddy 6,084 590 MB/s 44 ms
I'd go with a more storied project that's been audited, battle tested, hardened etc than this upstart. There's not enough improvement to justify the risk.
The problem with pasting LLM output is that no human with sound mind and body would waste their finite time on this Earth informing you that small static files are "the bread and butter of static sites".
replyI'm convinced that LLMs somehow settled on the middle manager as the exemplar of human cognition that it tries its best to emulate.
replyI could totally see "Small static files are the bread and butter of static sites" appearing in some pointless deck on a Zoom call.