asterisk users - Mar 2005 - Survey: what's the best HTTPd/TFTPd/FTPd to serve up configuration files to sets

I would like to start a discussion centred around the various ways one
might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk server (I know, it's
better to use a secondary server for all this, but let's talk about a
smaller system).

The types of things being served would include:
- Logo image for sets that support that
- XML directory files
- XML or raw text configuration files
- what-all-else

Seems to me that Apache is simply way too overpowered for all this, and
thus would needlessly place load on the server.

I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
Is TuX the way to go?

As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key, here.

Thoughts, opinions, experiences?

Thanks,

Jim.


--
Jim Van Meggelen
jim@vanmeggelen.ca

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005

Jim Van Meggelen wrote:
>I would like to start a discussion centred around the various ways one
>might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk server (I know, it's
>  
>
[snippage]
>I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
>have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
>Is TuX the way to go?
>  
>
TUX, unless it has changed since I last looked (and I don't think it 
has) has to hand off requests for dynamic content to another 
full-featured server, like Apache. If you want to use any PHP, mod_perl, 
or CGI scripts (vmail.cgi for instance) on your web server, then you'll 
need two web server. 
>As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key, here.
>
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to which 
distribution is best: "The best one to use is the one you know."

Personally, I try to use Postfix, Perl, Apache, and PostgreSQL on 
Linux.  There are advantages to qmail, PHP, TUX, and MySQL, but for 
various reasons, I have chosen to get to know Postfix, Perl, Apache, and 
PostgreSQL.  Because I know them, I can set them up to perform more 
efficiently and more securely than I could replacements for them that 
are marketed as "more secure" or "more robust."

Tftp (and to some extent ftp) servers are sort of an exception to this 
rule.  There's so little to configure that I'm fine using whatever the 
stock is with my distribution.  So long as they're not totally 
bone-headed, they'll all do the job about the same.
   
Nick

> I would like to start a discussion centred around the various ways one
> might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk server (I know,
it's
> better to use a secondary server for all this, but let's talk about a
> smaller system).
> 
> The types of things being served would include:
> - Logo image for sets that support that
> - XML directory files
> - XML or raw text configuration files
> - what-all-else
> 
> Seems to me that Apache is simply way too overpowered for all this, and
> thus would needlessly place load on the server.
Apache, like most other apps, only consumes resources when something
is interacting with it. It does use a little mem, but that's about it.
> I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
> have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
> Is TuX the way to go?
> 
> As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key,
here.
Same thing; it doesn't consume any resource unless its in use. For
the very short period of time its actually used, doubtful one would
actually notice it.

Our small office system has Apache, Sendmail, tftp, Asterisk and a couple
of other non-gui oriented background apps running at all times. They
never show up on 'top', etc.

Our Cisco 7960's obtain their config files, logo, and xml directory
entries via this system.

So, all of the above are sort of like asterisk --- no calls being 
processed, no resources being consumed. But at what point/size does 
that approach fall apart? Don't know as yet. :)

Rich

On March 5, 2005 08:00 pm, Jim Van Meggelen wrote:
> I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
> have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
> Is TuX the way to go?
>
> As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key,
here.
>
> Thoughts, opinions, experiences?
Just remember that early optimization is the cause of the fall of the Roman 
Empire.  Get it working, then start tweaking.

Having said that, I try to center my system around Postfix, Postgres, Perl 
(moving to Python slowly) and Apache.  I used to be a qmail diehard but one 
day I just got sick of it.  Same with PHP; I used to love it but now I hate 
it with a vengeance; I can't explain why but it is *so* much harder to write
maintainable, clear code in PHP compared to even Perl.

If you don't need a full-out ACID-compliant DB but want to keep SQL around, 
use SQLite, it's simply amazing and if you write your SQL portable enough
you
can always "change up" to Postgres with very little change in your
code.  If
SQL isn't an issue stick with something tiny and ubiquitous like db2 or
gdbm,
although I must admit I don't know much about either of these.  Hell, use 
flat files unless you *really* need a db.  

Do you *really* need two different httpds?  If you've already got Perl
running
and you are only serving up a dozen pages A MINUTE, what's wrong with 
Frontier::Daemon?  Do you really need all of Apache or to split the load up 
between tux and Apache?

As far as tftp and bootp and the like, I prefer udhcpcd and whatever 
slackware's in.tftpd is.  Very lightweight and work well enough.  FTP I use 
proftpd on.  You'll see that everything I tend to use is clear, concise and 
security-conscious.  I've learned enough the hard way that quick and dirty 
often costs you more in the end.  Use padl.org's LDAP connector instead of 
the hideous mess of complexity that PAM is.  Use a distro that is consistent 
with every install (that's a direct shot at Gentoo, btw).

-A.

Debian leaves the burden of choice to the user. It carries 3 tftpd-s, at
least 3 dhcpd-s and at least 16 httpd-s

Another note regarding memory usage:
Apache2 offers better memory usage with the thread pool model (rather
than the process pool of apache1). But just remember that mod_php4 still
doesn't run well with threaded apache.

My recomendations below...

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:00:55PM -0500, Jim Van Meggelen
wrote:
> I would like to start a discussion centred around the various ways one
> might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk server (I know,
it's
> better to use a secondary server for all this, but let's talk about a
> smaller system).
If memory is an issue and all you want is a simple http file server
there are plenty to choose from. Not all of them support cgi and not all
of them support directory listing.

If you need CGI, thttpd may be a smart choice.
> 
> The types of things being served would include:
> - Logo image for sets that support that
That's simple file serving
> - XML directory files
What do you need this for? Does apache support this?
> - XML or raw text configuration files
Simple file serving, again.
> - what-all-else
> 
> Seems to me that Apache is simply way too overpowered for all this, and
> thus would needlessly place load on the server.
Apache has many useful facilities. It is also well-supported and
well-understood. It may save you time using apache.
> 
> I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
> have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
> Is TuX the way to go?
Frankly I don't think an httpd should live in the kernel. This is
something better done in userspace. It is not significantly better than
optimized user-space httpd-s, and it is probably much less configurable.

Anyway, just to name a few alternatives:

$ apt-cache search -n httpd
aolserver - AOL Web Server 3 (Program)
aolserver4 - AOL Web Server 4 (Program)
apache - versatile, high-performance HTTP server
apache-perl - versatile, high-performance HTTP server with Perl support
apache-ssl - versatile, high-performance HTTP server with SSL support
apache2-mpm-perchild - experimental high speed perchild threaded model for
Apache2
apache2-mpm-prefork - traditional model for Apache2
apache2-mpm-worker - high speed threaded model for Apache2
boa - Lightweight and High Performance WebServer
bozohttpd - Bozotic HTTP server
caudium - An extensible WWW server written in Pike
dhttpd - minimal secure webserver without cgi-bin support
fnord - yet another small httpd
mathopd - Very small, yet very fast HTTP server
micro-httpd - really small HTTP server
mzscheme - PLT Scheme Interpreter
roxen3 - The Roxen Challenger Webserver
thttpd - tiny/turbo/throttling HTTP server
thttpd-util - Support utilities for thttpd
thy - A tiny and fast http daemon

If you build a busybox-based system, then you can use its built-in
thttpd.
> 
> As for tftpd 
$ apt-cache search -n tftpd
atftpd - advanced TFTP server
tftpd - Internet trivial file transfer protocol server.
tftpd-hpa - HPA's tftp server

tftpd is version 0.17 . tftpd-hppa (H. Peter Anvin?) is a a version with 
some later additions. Current version is 0.40 . You'll probably need it 
if you want to use PXE booting. It also has some more options. I figure
your distro will only have one of those.

atftpd has even more features.

Sadly, non of them includes a CGI-like ability. I rememeber omeone from
this list posted a Java implementation of a tftpd with the ability to
serve dynamic content. 

When we played with tftpd our poor-man's replacement for such an ability
was to monitor the logs for access errors and produce the file, in hope
that the system will retry.
> and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key, here.
vsftpd would probalby be a wise choice here, but frankly, I figure no
ftpd will take too many reources so configurabuility , security etc.
should be your main cncerns.

Proftpd is probably not a bad choice either.
> 
> Thoughts, opinions, experiences?
For a dnsd and dhcpd: dnsmasq . It is actually easy and simple to
configure if you use /etc/hosts and /etc/ethers .

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | New signature for new address and  |  VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | new homepage                       | a Mutt's  
tzafrir@cohens.org.il |                                    |  best
ICQ# 16849755         | Space reserved for other protocols | friend

Jim Van Meggelen wrote:
> I would like to start a discussion centred around the various ways one
> might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk server (I know,
it's
> better to use a secondary server for all this, but let's talk about a
> smaller system).
> 
> The types of things being served would include:
> - Logo image for sets that support that
> - XML directory files
> - XML or raw text configuration files
> - what-all-else
> 
> Seems to me that Apache is simply way too overpowered for all this, and
> thus would needlessly place load on the server.
> 
> I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use seems to
> have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be actively maintained.
> Is TuX the way to go?
> 
> As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the key,
here.
> 
> Thoughts, opinions, experiences?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim.
> 
> 
> --
> Jim Van Meggelen
> jim@vanmeggelen.ca
> 
Jim,

	My vote for small:

	HTTP: mini_httpd (or thttpd)
	FTP: vsftpd
	TFTP: tftp-hpa (hands down, no questions asked the best TFTP server. 
Anyone who has ever used PXE can back me up on this one.)

	Features:

	HTTP: Apache (duh!)
	FTP: proftpd
	TFTP: tftp-hpa

	My $0.02.

--
Kristian Kielhofner

Thanks as always to everyone who provided feedback. It was most helpful!

Regards,

Jim.


--
Jim Van Meggelen
jim@vanmeggelen.ca



asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com wrote:
> I would like to start a discussion centred around the various
> ways one might serve up configuration files from an Asterisk
> server (I know, it's better to use a secondary server for all
> this, but let's talk about a smaller system).
> 
> The types of things being served would include:
> - Logo image for sets that support that
> - XML directory files
> - XML or raw text configuration files
> - what-all-else
> 
> Seems to me that Apache is simply way too overpowered for all
> this, and thus would needlessly place load on the server.
> 
> I have heard that khttpd is pretty lightweight, but its use
> seems to have been deprecated, and it does not appear to be
> actively maintained. Is TuX the way to go?
> 
> As for tftpd and ftpd, I'm just not sure. Leightweight is the
> key, here.
> 
> Thoughts, opinions, experiences?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim.
> 
> 
> --
> Jim Van Meggelen
> jim@vanmeggelen.ca
-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005