« A bit more YAML::Syck. | Main | Releng for 6.2.11 starts. »

2006.01.12

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e8fb69e200d834a6b78b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference lighttpd++:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

as a longtime vet of a major web serving company (decode from my name), i continue to be perplexed by the interest in "light" http servers, which have been rejected here whenever they are proposed. apache can saturate a 100baseT connection on almost any semi-modern piece of hardware without imposing undue load. to consider alternatives is to embrace losing functionality without any meaningful gain in resource allocation.

Why should I pay the overhead of configuring, installing, and running all of Apache httpd when I just want to serve a few static files as quickly as possible or do a little testing on my laptop or don't have access to mod_perl on a shared host but can run my own lightweight web server processes?

Not every environment looks exactly like Yahoo!

On a really highly loaded environment, with lighttpd you can achieve some real cut in the load. Do it just for the static files, and you won't lose any functionality.

chromatic - every major operating system has available for it a prepackaged up-to-date version of apache with sensible defaults, so beyond your other reasons (which seem flimsy), i don't by the argument that apache is difficult to install and maintain. in any case the notion that apache is "heavyweight" simply because the alternatives call themselves lightweight is a fallacy.

In my personal experience, I worked on an apache system serving a simple SSI(returning only one interesting piece of data), which sat near a 100 load most of the time. It was still remarkably usable, and the page it was serving was tiny, but it was only able to serve around 250 requests per second. A custom apache module took it to 350 or so.

The Cherokee webserver, with a similar custom module, took it to a .3 load (or there abouts; a much more reasonable number), and able to serve 3000+ requests per second.

I guess where I'm going with this is: apache probably scales fine to saturate a large pipe with a good sized number of larger requests -- but it doesn't do as well with a huge number of tiny pages.

All that being said, I use apache for everything at the moment :)

Yeah, the operative word in my post is 350mhz -- also the machine itself is alrady under considerable load (3 or so). :-)

I refuse to believe that a distribution has shipped Apache httpd with "sensible defaults" if the default httpd.conf includes and enables mod_imap... but hey, I'm just picking at little pieces of your argument like you picked at mine.

Maybe it really is "flimsy" that running a single Apache httpd hosting multiple virtual domains for separate customers is rather... difficult... to support if some need some features and others need other features, yet it really happens. A little mod_rewrite, mod_proxy, or other magic can make the pain almost all go away.

I use lighty because of one thing, I find it alot easier to configure than Apache, and I don't need all those funky modules... ;-)

My internal (read play) server is an AMD64 3000+ with a gig of ram. So the load or memory usage wouldn't be something that matter, if it weren't that just because it's a play server I run alot of other things on it, so after all memory footprint and load starts to count...

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Audrey

My Photo

License