On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 14:26:06 Bill Kenworthy wrote: > On 29/06/15 02:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote: > >>> Why did you stop using lighttpd? > >> > >> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because, > >> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my > >> hand. :-)) > > > > So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :) > > > >> All these are good servers for particular use cases. My use case for > >> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM. > >> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it. > >> > >> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache. > >> > >> - nginx was light, fast and full of features. > >> > >> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden > >> on resources. Slower than ligthttpd. > >> > >> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees. > >> > >> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years > >> ago. I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and > >> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some > >> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them. > > > > Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in > > my neck of the woods... > > same here! > I decided to start with lighttpd and it seems to do the job. Will look > at Nginx next. > > Thanks, > BillK
If I were to count the pints I owe you over the years for your kind help, the first round is definitely on me! :-) -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
