Many people observe that as miles-per-gallon gets better and better, it begins to become a deceptive measurement in a way, because going from 10 to 20 mpg is a much, much larger change than going from 30 to 40, or even from 80 to 140. It seems people get a better sense of what&#x27;s going on to measure gallons per mile. When you start doing that it becomes more clear that going from .0001 gallons per mile to .00001 gallons per mile, as large as it may be in orders of magnitude, still isn&#x27;t that big a deal. Either way you&#x27;re looking at your cost-of-fuel being effectively zero for all practical use cases, because your costs will be dominated by something else.<p>Similarly, I&#x27;ve noticed that people tend to get a little silly about web server requests-per-second. It really gets to the point you probably ought to be talking about seconds per request, or perhaps rather, microseconds per request or something.<p>Because A: as you start talking about these fast servers, you need to contemplate whether <i>your</i> code can run in, say, 2.5 microseconds either; who cares whether your webserver takes 2 or 25 microseconds to handle a minimal request if your minimal response requires 8 milliseconds (i.e. &quot;8000 microseconds&quot;)? 8ms would actually be pretty decent performance for a wide variety of non-trivial web requests.<p>And B: As the webservers get faster and faster, you really need to start wondering what corners they cut to push their reqs&#x2F;s number up. I can make a blazingly fast webserver that would actually kill nginx&#x27;s performance stone dead for a &quot;return a constant JSON string response&quot; task... the trick is that I&#x27;m not even going to look at the incoming web request, I&#x27;m going to just receive a socket, blast out my answer as a constant string buffer without even reading from the socket, and discard the socket. (If you&#x27;re feeling particularly saucy, hook that up to a user-space TCP stack so you can drop the work of properly setting up and tearing down TCP connections.) There aren&#x27;t that many real-world tasks for which that is a good solution (though, non-zero!), but it&#x27;ll look like pure awesomesauce on the benchmark!<p><i>Properly</i> handling HTTP is non-trivial problem, and even moreso if it&#x27;s going to be hooked up to a program rather than a static file system or something similarly easy. I actually start getting <i>nervous</i> about web servers that show excessively high numbers. If your performance is much better than nginx, rather than me cheering for joy, I actually have a lot of questions about how you did that exactly, and what my website&#x27;s security profile looks like with your way-faster server. I&#x27;m not saying these questions are completely unanswerable; perhaps there is a way to safely do a much faster web server. I&#x27;m just saying that rather than my default response being celebration and &quot;Oh wowzers <i>cool</i>!&quot;, my default reaction is a healthy dollop of skepticism.