Le Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Toni Mueller ecrivait : > My experience from running some low-traffic sites with both nginx and > lighttpd is that nginx is by far easier to handle, more robust, and > also more flexible in its configuration, and I hope to get rid of > lighttpd asap (eg. "my" bugs would linger for months, or longer). The > only point where lighttpd imho "shines", sort of, is easier launching > of internal FastCGI servers.
With low-traffic sites, there's not much difference between lighty and nginx, both are quite stable and they can serve a lot of static content without any CPU hit, even on a Soekris box. When it comes to the configuration, you can achieve the same results with both, but indeed nginx configuration files are usually cleaner. The lighty development status is a bit messy (see the lighty blog), while nginx development is clear and very active. Sure, lighty can start fastcgi servers, but on sites with medium traffic, php-fpm blows lighty's fastcgi servers. Switching from lighty (1.5) to nginx + php-fpm with GOTO for the Zend VM reduced the average time to serve pages of a busy vbulletin board down to a factor of 4. I never went back to lighty since. By the way, is anyone working on adding php-fpm to the php port? The patch requires some tweaks in order to properly merge and compile, but it's really worth it especially with nginx. > > Do you have any problems running nginx as a reverse proxy for Zope? We > do it, and it gives us less trouble than the built-in Apache, I must > say (even ignoring the system load). > > > Kind regards, > --Toni++ > -- Frank Denis - j [at] pureftpd.org - http://00f.net - http://www.cotery.com
