On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've said this before, but I think this is not a very rational claim. > Network servers are actually pretty hard to get right and HTTP is no > longer very simple. More to the point, there's nothing "heavy" about > apache/mod_perl compared to other web servers + FastCGI. An > event-based server like Lighttpd will have better performance than > Apache 2's worker MPM (the recommended choice for front-end proxies) > on static files, but who has a bottleneck on static files these days?
At ApacheCon, the subject of Lighttpd came up in comparison to Apache. Paul Querna remarked that Apache and Lighttpd are about the same speed since they have basically the same system calls. Lighttpd slows down though when you have to stop it and apply security patches; count the number of times you find the word attacker and vulnerability on the patches linked to this page - http://www.lighttpd.net/download Another good counter argument to those who say they would rather use something instead of Apache/mod_perl is "Have you tried it server X instead of Apache/mod_perl?". Then count the number of crickets you hear chirping; a good number of people who have told me they would rather use server X haven't taken the time to set it up and try it out. After all, FastCGI must be Fast, right? :)
