I''m a long time user of Apache - first 1.3.x and then 2.x for about two years now I guess. People seem to be raving about Lighttpd, and, from what I''ve read, it appears to perform much better than Apache, especially with lots of connections*. Is Lighttpd easier to configure, setup, etc.? Any other compelling reasons to switch to it? I feel like I have a lot of stuff added in to Apache (various mods, mod_rewrite rules, etc.) - maybe use them both in parallel? thanks csn * Yesterday I received over 20,000 visits from Googlebot to one site, and many more hits to other sites from Googlebot and other bots - server load was around 8-10 most of the day. (These sites don''t use much caching - client or server side - but I plan on switching them to Rails and utilizing its caching). __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors'' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
I''m using lighttpd and it''s very easy to configure for Rails use. As for performance, you can read one case of Apache vs lighttpd at Textdrive: http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/44/taking-a-full-frontal-slashdot-lighttpdly Regards, Bill On 11/17/05, CSN <cool_screen_name90001-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I''m a long time user of Apache - first 1.3.x and then 2.x for about two > years now I guess. People > seem to be raving about Lighttpd, and, from what I''ve read, it appears to > perform much better than > Apache, especially with lots of connections*. > Is Lighttpd easier to configure, setup, etc.? Any other compelling reasons > to switch to it? I feel > like I have a lot of stuff added in to Apache (various mods, mod_rewrite > rules, etc.) - maybe use > them both in parallel? > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Support for mod_proxy''s rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.
Mod_spelling, mod_svn are both missing.
Apart from that I have found no reason to use apache any more. Lighttpd is
faster, less of a memory hog and it is very easy to configure. The main
thing I like about lighttpd is its conditional based config file. You can
even do nested conditionals, which allows you to do somethings you
can''t do
in apache (like forcing a certain virtual host to use a https connection).
For example to do a virtual host you do:
$HTTP[''host''] =~ ''some regex expression'' {
some stuff
like server.document-root = /some/where/else
or a fastcgi thing
}
Miles
On 11/17/05, Bill Katz <billkatz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> I''m using lighttpd and it''s very easy to configure for
Rails use.
> As for performance, you can read one case of Apache vs lighttpd at
> Textdrive:
>
>
http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/44/taking-a-full-frontal-slashdot-lighttpdly
>
> Regards, Bill
>
> On 11/17/05, CSN
<cool_screen_name90001-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > I''m a long time user of Apache - first 1.3.x and then 2.x for
about two
> > years now I guess. People
> > seem to be raving about Lighttpd, and, from what I''ve read,
it appears
> > to perform much better than
> > Apache, especially with lots of connections*.
> > Is Lighttpd easier to configure, setup, etc.? Any other compelling
> > reasons to switch to it? I feel
> > like I have a lot of stuff added in to Apache (various mods,
mod_rewrite
> > rules, etc.) - maybe use
> > them both in parallel?
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
2005/11/17, Miles Wu <miles.wu-56XpppXpyg0qdlJmJB21zg@public.gmane.org>:> Support for mod_proxy''s rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.It has mod_proxy module but it is very limited if compared to Apache. It has also mod_rewrite but again it is very limited if compared to Apache. E.g. there is no way for using lighttpd instead of Apache for Zope/Plone. mod_rewrite can map only to local url. And mod_rewrite can map only to IP instead of full URL.. I am using Plone with several virtual hosts and one IP. Lighttpd cannot do RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://host.domain:8080/$1 [P,L] nor ProxyPass / http://host.domain:8080/ -- JZ
> Mod_spelling, mod_svn are both missing. > ... > Support for mod_proxy''s rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.We are usually combining it with reverse proxy (pound) - [ http://apsis.ch/pound/ ]. lighttpd (and apache if needed for something - svn etc.) started on 127.0.0.1, different ports. Based on url pound forward requests to lighttpd or apache (or even resin for java stuff). Helps also with load balancing/failover detection. Also pound handle all HTTPS stuff, so even web servers with missing support for it (https) are OK.