Recently I upgraded my shared hosting plan to a VPS (Virtual Private Server). Part of the reason is that when your blog gets enough hits, WordPress and MySQL become increasingly demanding. My page load times were around 8 seconds previously. Since switching to a VPS plan, I have decreased that to 1-2s which is much more acceptable. What makes load time interesting is that major internet sites see people turn away if load times are high.
“For Google an increase in page load time from 0.4 second to 0.9 seconds decreased traffic and ad revenues by 20%. For Amazon every 100 ms increase in load times decreased sales with 1%.”1
This suggests to me that I had better get page load time under control, or my blog won’t reach many people on the internet. Since I already was paying for shared hosting, the jump up to a VPS was not much more money. The result is fantastic though, as I get a server with root access, and better yet it runs on Ubuntu.
The Cherokee website provides a Benchmarks page2 which covers Cherokee being tested against Apache, Lighttpd and Nginx. Cherokee always does really well in these bench marks, and was designed with a focus on security. My website, which gets over 1000 unique visitors a day, with WordPress / MySQL / Cherokee only uses 119 megabytes of ram on my VPS. Cherokee itself is only using 10 megabytes, which shows just how lean it is. In addition to that, it also services requests very efficiently:

Requests per second with 20 concurrent clients
Another factor which pushed me to Cherokee is the way Cherokee is configured. It provides a great, easy to understand / intuitive web interface for configuration. I never had to open up a .conf file and edit it, and yet the configuration it generated is still in plain text and easy to understand should I need to. That is exactly what the webserver world has needed for a long time.
In the next few weeks I will follow up with a detailed Cherokee installation / configuration tutorial and some other fun things I have done with the VPS. If you want to check out Cherokee, their official project website is at: http://www.cherokee-project.com
Related posts:
#1 by Daubers on April 2, 2009 - 1:47 pm
Quote
Hiya chap,
What’s on the y-axis of that graph? The graph seems to need it, otherwise it could be easily misinterpreted.
#2 by sharms on April 2, 2009 - 1:49 pm
Quote
The full context of that graph is in the footnote with Cherokee benchmarks: http://www.cherokee-project.com/benchmarks.html
I edited the caption so hopefully that clears that up.
#3 by Christopher Denter on April 2, 2009 - 4:51 pm
Quote
If only there was something like mod_wsgi for Cherokee…
(Yes, I do know the discussion about that on their mailinglist…)
#4 by Vadim P. on April 2, 2009 - 6:41 pm
Quote
That’s great. I was looking for an apache replacement for a low-memory VPS.
#5 by Mike on April 3, 2009 - 6:49 am
Quote
What provider do you use for VPS?
#6 by sharms on April 3, 2009 - 12:59 pm
Quote
I went with http://www.futurehosting.com — I recommend you check out webhostingtalk.com and view the subforums there. Tons of great deals / coupon codes for VPS providers.
I ended up with an OpenVZ VPS with 768MB of ram for $25/mo
#7 by atc on April 6, 2009 - 5:07 pm
Quote
“That is exactly what the webserver world has needed for a long time.”
No it hasn’t. Not one bit.
#8 by Pierre on September 2, 2009 - 5:20 am
Quote
Cherokee claims it is the “fastest web server” while it has been
shown 6 TIMES slower (at its best) than others:
http://g-wan.com/
And, by the way, G-WAN ANSI C scripts are 5 times faster than
Microsoft IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C#.
Compare TrustLeap G-WAN 108 KB with Cherokee’s footprint
(without scripting) and you will understand what small-footprint
means.
#9 by Hard to read on November 5, 2009 - 10:19 am
Quote
Served up quickly, but the page is brown on brown with tiny fonts.
#10 by saya on November 5, 2009 - 8:33 pm
Quote
Hi sharms,
I have also VPS with Plesk Admin + LAMP Stack. I would like to change to Cherokee Webserver + PHP + Mysql + FTP.
Can you write complete “building Cherokee Web Hosting ” guide?
regards,
saya
#11 by sadotmd on September 3, 2010 - 4:21 pm
Quote
Interesting… personally, I opted for nginx
#12 by Mark on April 10, 2011 - 7:47 pm
Quote
Here is an interesting comparative review of the fatest Web servers and cache servers:
http://nbonvin.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/serving-small-static-files-which-server-to-use/
Requests per sec. .. Server ……………… Type of Server
——————————————————————————
142,000 ………… G-WAN ………………. (a Web Application server)
80,000 ………… Nginx ………………. (a Web server)
60,000 ………… Lighttpd ……………. (a Web server)
52,000 ………… Apache Traffic Server … (Yahoo!’s “Web accelerator”)
28,000 ………… Varnish …………….. (Facebook’s “Web accelerator”)