Yes, lowering the web server overhead is a good thing. But I think in most cases it's already so low that further reducing this overhead results in no noticeable impact in real-life scenarios. At some point you'll just be benchmarking how fast the kernel is at doing connect(), read() and write() - in other words how fast your computer can do nothing.
For example, let's consider this thought experiment:
Someone here mentioned Mongrel2 getting 4000 req/sec. Let's replace the name "Mongrel2" with "Server A" because this thought experiment is not limited to Mongrel2, but all servers. I assume he's benchmarking a hello world app on his laptop. Suppose that a hypothetical Server B gets "only" 2000 req/sec. One might now (mistakenly) conclude that:
- Server B is a lot slower.
- One should use Server A instead of Server B in high-traffic production environments.
Now put Server A behind HAProxy. HAproxy is known as a high-performance HTTP proxy server with minimal overhead. Benchmark this setup, and watch req/sec drop to about 2000-3000 (when benchmarked on a typical dual core laptop).
What just happened? Server B appears to be very slow. But the reality is that both Server A and Server B are so fast that doing even a minimum amount of extra work will have a significant effect on the req/sec number. In this case, the overhead of an extra context switch and a read()/write() call to the kernel is already enough to make the req/sec number drop by half. Any reasonably complex web app logic will make the number drop so much that the performance difference between the different servers become negligible.