| 1 |
On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 16:05:41 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:28:27 +0100, Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I am using apache, nginx, thttpd, boa. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I have also used lighttpd in the past. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Why did you stop using lighttpd? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because, well ... |
| 10 |
I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my hand. :-)) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
All these are good servers for particular use cases. My use case for the |
| 13 |
lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM. I tried |
| 14 |
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 on |
| 21 |
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 ago. I |
| 26 |
went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and MEM% lowest among |
| 27 |
competitors. The task in hand was to serve some simple web pages with MRTG |
| 28 |
graphs on them. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Mick |
Archives