| 1 |
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Why did you stop using lighttpd? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because, |
| 6 |
> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my |
| 7 |
> hand. :-)) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> All these are good servers for particular use cases. My use case for |
| 12 |
> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM. |
| 13 |
> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> - nginx was light, fast and full of features. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden |
| 20 |
> on resources. Slower than ligthttpd. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years |
| 25 |
> ago. I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and |
| 26 |
> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some |
| 27 |
> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in |
| 30 |
my neck of the woods... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Feminism: the radical notion that women are people. |
Archives