This thread discusses the Content article: Lighttpd Vs. Apache (Joomla 1.5.1)

All i can say is WOW, i have been following your performance in regard to lighttpd and joomla and these results are good to see.
I may have to look for a host that has this now even though i get liek 30 hits a day only i'm a speed freak

What does this have to do with Lighttpd Vs. Apache???

You linked to a Community Builder article...

This is good.

Have you seen this comparison Web Server Performance Comparison: LiteSpeed 2.1 VS apache and Lighthttpd?

http://www.litespeedtech.com/web-server-performance-comparison-litespeed-2.1-vs.html

Should be interesting to see how J 1.5.1 is between them...

I'm very skeptical of their claims... I'm going to get a copy of it, and try to play around...

ircmaxell wrote:
I'm very skeptical of their claims...

Me too, I have yet to talk to anyone that is actually running the full version. The free/standard edition is stuck at 150 connections and can't use Multi-Processor's.

On a side note: I just got rid of Lighthttpd from 2 ded boxes and replaced it with nginx (engine X)
I was having serous memory leak issues with lighthttpd. It may have been conflicting with something, But after screwing with it for 5 weeks I gave up.

For my environment nginx kicks serous ass. I'm not running joomla on anything anymore so I can't tell you how it does with oll joom but the php apps I am running love nginx.

Here's a link to it. > http://nginx.net/ and heres a wiki > http://wiki.codemongers.com/Main

One of my boxes is running it as a proxy serving up static files, while running next to apache thats serving up the php data.
The other is running only nginx with fastcgi.

If you bench LiteSpeed post your results

Oh, you better believe I will post the results...

I've tried nginx, and didn't like it, but if it works for you, great!

As far as the memory leak, I've heard that on specific platforms it's possible. With that said, I've never seen one (and I have 12 pysical computers running it, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, WinXPx64).

ircmaxell wrote:
I'm very skeptical of their claims... I'm going to get a copy of it, and try to play around...

What is the pro and cons about using Lighttpd instead of Apache?

apache = fat bloated pig.

lightpd or nginx have a much much much smaller footprint.

Ill post some mem usage benches when I have a free minute.

Edge wrote:
apache = fat bloated pig.

lightpd or nginx have a much much much smaller footprint.

Ill post some mem usage benches when I have a free minute.

Ok thats about performance and everybody understand that but what is Lighttpd missing that Apache have??

Ok thats about performance and everybody understand that but what is Lighttpd missing that Apache have??

Nothing.

Post edited by: Edge, at: 2008/03/18 10:13

Well, there are really only 2 things that apache can do that you can't get Lighttpd to do. One is .htaccess files, and the other is .htpasswd files. But this saves a significant deal of overhead (as it doesn't need to scan for those files).

I never tried to pw protect anything in lighttpd.
but in nginx its easy, and you can use the htpasswd from apache to make an
encoded htpasswd file. Then nginx looks at it based on your config.

I agree about the htaccess though. It sucks, I'm glad to have it/them gone lol.

Post edited by: Edge, at: 2008/03/18 15:27

Oh, you can easially do password protection, but not like apache (where you just drop in the .htpasswd file where you want it)

Kewl.
Yea I didn't spend much time with anything other than trying to get lightly running correctly.I just finally gave up on it. The turning point was when I basically had to write a reboot script for it, so it would restart every day and clean out the mem leak.

I believe its my platform though. My friend has had it running strong for over a year with 0 mem leaks or any issues for that matter.

Honestly though, with either of these two web servers "lightly or nginx" I'm amazed anyone is using apache. Its such a flaming pos... err well unless you only get a few hundred hits a day lol.

I just downgraded my main dedicated box lol. went from 4 gigs to 2. And apache was using 3/4 of the 4gigs rofl. I'm now able to give some more love/ram to the innodb buffer pool w00t

Post edited by: Edge, at: 2008/03/18 15:43

Exactly... I tried nginx (about a year and a half ago) and didn't care for it. but then again, I do not have a memory leak in Lighttpd...

The reason people still use Apache is because a lot of people buy into "That's just the way it is". If you want to run a high traffic site, you need a load balancer with umpteen servers...

I will say this... Not one person who's tried Lighttpd (that I've talked into trying it) has gone back. Not one...