20%-30% isn't very good in your eyes!?! :) Wow, there must be some serious optimization opportunities there then! I'd love to squeeze another 20-30% out of my apps. :)
lighttpd is young i suppose. What maybe 3-4 years old or so? I definitely wouldn't what it running my main RichOnlineApp server or anything, but I think is is completely stable enough to be used as a back-end / web-services-only web server. In fact, i'd say that's where it's strength lies. Apache is robust and reliable but for those of us who love us some lean-and-meanness, it borders on bloat these days. Any quality software with enough age behind it suffers this fate, look at FireFox! As far a nginx goes, I don't have an opinion. It may very well rock but I haven't had to find out because lighttp has answered my need for a trim/speedy bare-bones web server. :) -Jim/Thinbegin On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Jordan Schatz <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you wanna improve performance, I'd suggest that you move to a >> light-weight web server like lighttpd rather than Apache. That's gonna >> give ya a boost! :) > I've had a look at nginx and lighttpd, I like the look of nginx > better. They both seem a little young and unstable to me though, and I > did some performance testing (no optimization, just default .deb > packages) and while I saw some performance gain, I wasn't blown away (I > think 25-30% was the best I saw) > > *shrug* > _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
