Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Bill Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:57:05
Message-Id: 558FF5EE.30403@iinet.net.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations by Neil Bothwick
1 On 29/06/15 02:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
2 > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote:
3 >
4 >>> Why did you stop using lighttpd?
5 >>
6 >> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because,
7 >> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my
8 >> hand. :-))
9 >
10 > So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :)
11 >
12 >> All these are good servers for particular use cases. My use case for
13 >> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM.
14 >> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it.
15 >>
16 >> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache.
17 >>
18 >> - nginx was light, fast and full of features.
19 >>
20 >> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden
21 >> on resources. Slower than ligthttpd.
22 >>
23 >> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees.
24 >>
25 >> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years
26 >> ago. I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and
27 >> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some
28 >> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them.
29 >
30 > Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in
31 > my neck of the woods...
32 >
33 >
34
35 same here!
36 I decided to start with lighttpd and it seems to do the job. Will look
37 at Nginx next.
38
39 Thanks,
40 BillK

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>