You're certainly within your rights to not use Caddy, but it makes no sense to complain that you can't get the performance information you need when you won't share any information about your use case.
I don’t have one single set of requirements for every location I use a web server. Nobody does.
If Caddy is good for one thing but not so good for other things, why is it so hard to come out and say that?
Also, the benchmark I was questioning in the opening comment came from mholt on the official community forum. It’s mind boggling that I’m getting attacked for questioning the benchmark result that they provided in the first place.
You want performance metrics, but can't even tell us what metrics matter to you, but expect Matt and Caddy team to have them just available... You understand that your responses here are directly proving his point on not having them, right?
It's not what he's saying, but how he's saying it. "I'm still waiting to hear your performance requirements btw.", is a condescending, dismissive tone that would put more people off than not. Especially considering it was a reply within just a couple minutes of his initial question.
I don't think you're being negative or whatever and I also think the other person has an idea of what they want to know but not how to explain it.
Do they want connection handling metrics? SSL terminations? Caching performance?
Also, not at you but a general laugh, "the reverse proxy isn't the bottleneck ever" is funny because prior to haproxy, getting gigabit throughput to a backend was considered extreme engineering.
Now I can load balance and ssl terminate a gigabit with like 5 raspberry pi and an old Intel box to load balance and cache.
I suppose this encapsulates why I get turned off of Caddy every time I look into it: Basic concerns (including questions about approximate performance) are met with suggestions that I don’t know what I want and therefore I’m not qualified to make such judgments.