| 1 |
On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 14:26:06 Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29/06/15 02:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote: |
| 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 |
> same here! |
| 34 |
> I decided to start with lighttpd and it seems to do the job. Will look |
| 35 |
> at Nginx next. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Thanks, |
| 38 |
> BillK |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
If I were to count the pints I owe you over the years for your kind help, the |
| 42 |
first round is definitely on me! :-) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Regards, |
| 46 |
Mick |
Archives