Good morning all,

Which web server offers performance with low and high usages.

and why.

I just read about nginx and found someone saying that its way better than lighthttpd even.

So want to know available options and which you you prefer.

Why?

Regards
Visv

The best webserver is a running one if you need it.
I doubt you can get a better answer than this - because it depends lots on a) what needs to be served b) what kind of hardware you can afford and lots more points.

lighthttp is usually beyond what people want to pay for a webserver and the reason they fall back to the free apache one. On the other hand i have seen big apache installations running on high performance.

the better question would be:

The best sysadmin is?
or
Whats the best config while using ... on ... with .... requests/(day|min|sec)?

Hello,

The best web server is apache. But apache take more memory when it handle huge number of requests. I have worked with nginx and it is really superb,but it has some issues when handling PHP(also i ma not sure if it work perfect on cpanel). So best method is to use nginx as primary webserver and let it handle html requests. Then configure nginx so that php requests will be redirected to apache. Thus you can increase the performance of upto 400%.


shiyas T A
shiyas.com

Nginx is a good webserver efficient for serving of static content. It is announced for having low memory usage. It seems that lighthttpd might perform best in a more fragmented file system (smaller files).

Hello,

The best web server is apache. But apache take more memory when it handle huge number of requests. I have worked with nginx and it is really superb,but it has some issues when handling PHP(also i ma not sure if it work perfect on cpanel). So best method is to use nginx as primary webserver and let it handle html requests. Then configure nginx so that php requests will be redirected to apache. Thus you can increase the performance of upto 400%.


shiyas T A
shiyas.com

I have heard of a few people doing similar configs, but I'm not sure if it's a 400% gain, but I'm hearing good things...

If you use dynamic content, I will recommend you apache.
For static content lighthttpd.

If you use dynamic content, I will recommend you apache.
For static content lighthttpd.


i agree with you

The best webserver is a running one if you need it.
I doubt you can get a better answer than this - because it depends lots on a) what needs to be served b) what kind of hardware you can afford and lots more points.

lighthttp is usually beyond what people want to pay for a webserver and the reason they fall back to the free apache one. On the other hand i have seen big apache installations running on high performance.

the better question would be:

The best sysadmin is?
or
Whats the best config while using ... on ... with .... requests/(day|min|sec)?

I think you are confusing LiteSpeed with Lighttpd. Lighttpd is free.

We've recently switched from Apache to Lighttpd and its great. We have a mix of static and dynamic content but we dont really need none of the advance features of Apache and the load it puts on the server.

And Lighttpd is so simple that we've actually built the .conf file from scratch, thats something we would never do with Apache as it comes with many options pre-written.

The only reason we did not go with nginx is because there is not much community support or documentation for it online. If something needs to be configured I go on a wild goose chase for answers.

If you need an alternative to Apache, go with Lighttpd, and here, this is a good place to start http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/installing-and-configuring-lighttpd-webserver-howto.html