On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 21:33:03 +0200
Hiltjo Posthuma <hil...@codemadness.org> wrote:
Dear Hiltjo,
> > Thanks for the insight! I was thinking about using quark instead of
> > OpenBSD's httpd, because it simpler to use and probably even more
> > secure. I think ~1000 requests/second is still plenty for all my
> > projects, but in case I need the extra performance some day, I know
> > what the bottleneck is.
> >
>
> To setup OpenBSD httpd it is 3 lines of text for a static-serving
> httpd:
>
> server "default" {
> listen on egress port 80
> }
>
> It can be used with a nicely priviledge-separated model with the
> slowcgi program too:
>
> server "default" {
> listen on egress port 80
>
> location "/" {
> root "/cgi-bin/program"
> fastcgi
> }
> }
>
> Regarding "performance": have you tried to look at login.conf
> resource-limits or tuning the system in other ways for your actual
> needs?
exactly! If you are using OpenBSD, I see no reason not to use httpd
over quark in any circumstance, but especially for "fixed" setups like
a webserver.
If you are at a conference and quickly want to share something on the
network, there's not much difference between
$ vim /etc/httpd.conf
... adding three lines
$ rcctl reload httpd
and
$ quark -h ... -p 80 -d ...
On Linux the story is different and many of the common solutions either
involve lots of config, are bloated with lots of dependencies, are
not secure or even lack basic features.
So yeah, even though I'm the quark maintainer, I would not evangelize
it and see it more as a quick drop-in on non-OpenBSD machines.
With best regards
Laslo
