Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    73

    What is *currently* the best solution for static only content for VPS?

    I know this type of thread has been created numerous times. However, after checking this board's history I thought it had been a little while and with technology changing at such a rapid pace it might be good to revisit this now and then. And if there is a new development anytime in the future I think this topic should be bumped.

    I only want VPS to deliver static content (basically, static HTML, images, some videos that are not too big, stuff like that)

    My Japan VPS will be 2GB memory and I have to configure it all myself with Centos. I don't want to pay for something such as LiteSpeed but I'm fine paying someone a reasonable fee to install or configure something correctly- and harden it, etc.

    Is nginx still the best and easiest choice? I know it's much better than Apache for static only content. And I get the feeling that even if something beats nginx it's only a very small difference, anyway.

    Thoughts? Thanks so much!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,816
    varnish?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    471
    thttpd serves static content great, but nginx is a fine candidate.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,459
    There is not really a small difference between litespeed and nginx.

    Litespeed is far better according to our experience, how ever proper setup can do something too, you can look onto some management companies to get a proper setup.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    13
    I like Lighttpd. They were the fastest with static content some while ago. Not certain which web server currently is.

    I prefer Lighty over nginx since it has a nice configuration syntax and better online documentation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by public_html View Post
    There is not really a small difference between litespeed and nginx.

    Litespeed is far better according to our experience, how ever proper setup can do something too, you can look onto some management companies to get a proper setup.
    Have any benchmark results to backup that claim?

    I have a hard time believing that anything like apache or litespeed will touch nginx for static content. Of course, if you factor in all the other features of litespeed, its a great solution as an apache replacement.
    Frank Laszlo - Developer
    Franksworld Solutions, LLC

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    73
    I really appreciate the info. I think I will go with nginx. My 2nd choice was Lighty, and perhaps thttpd. Might bounce this thread months later if there is any new big development. Heard about Varnish and have checked around to see it's a new popular solution to save resources, but can't make sense of it.

    Thanks again!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,932
    Try both nginx and lighttpd out to see which you are comfortable with. I started with Apache, then moved to lighttpd, and have tried switching to nginx a few times but still find myself going back to lighttpd for ease of management because that's what I'm used to.
    -Joe @ Secure Dragon LLC.
    + OpenVZ Powered by Wyvern | KVM | cPanel Hosting | Backup VPSs | LowEndBoxes | DDOS Protection
    + Florida | Colorado | Illinois | California | Oregon | Georgia | New Jersey | Arizona | Texas

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi
    Posts
    1,200
    If you go with lightspeed don't get the 'free/standard' version of it, only 150 concurrent connections which is easily exceeded by either nginx or litehttpd.

    Personally I think nginx does excellent for static content and can handle far more connections than apache on the same hardware for just static connections without even a blip to the cpu/mem in comparison.
    IonVz - Nginx/FreeBSD/VPS Consulting | VPSNodeBox - Managed Support Representative

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by quantumphysics View Post
    varnish?
    +1 for Varnish. The first reply to this thread suggested the perfect software. Your eyes will pop when you see Varnish put in action. You could also try Squid or any other reverse proxy.

    When you are serving purely static content you should never have Apache/Litespeed/Lighttpd, etc. serving on port 80. Use one of the HTTP reverse proxy to deliver your content.

    Read more about Varnish Cache:
    Varnish Cache is really, really fast. It typically speeds up delivery with a factor of 300 - 1000x, depending on your architecture.
    Last edited by InfiniteTech; 06-07-2012 at 11:51 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteTech View Post
    +1 for Varnish.

    The first reply to this thread suggested the perfect software.

    Compare it with the other HTTP servers and your eyes will pop when you see Varnish put in action.
    Perfection is subjective. With Varnish you do have some cons as well as pros' and you'd still have to decide on the actual webserver behind it, as varnish is an http accelerator not a web server.
    IonVz - Nginx/FreeBSD/VPS Consulting | VPSNodeBox - Managed Support Representative

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by kbeezie View Post
    Perfection is subjective. With Varnish you do have some cons as well as pros' and you'd still have to decide on the actual webserver behind it, as varnish is an http accelerator not a web server.
    Yes, I did mention it as a reverse proxy. I understand that its not a web-server. You could have Apache, Lighttpd or any other web-server serving in the background. It really wouldn't make any significant difference.

    If you are serving files smaller than 1MB, I can suggest Varnish. Ofcourse, if the OP had posted a lot details regarding the content he is serving, we could have discussed other options as well. Ofcourse, if you are serving 1 GB .iso files only, Varnish makes no difference unless that is the only file (yes, just 1 file).

    Varnish can be a pain to configure if you are serving content that utilizes cookies/sessions. However, my recommendation still stands true with serving static content.

    OR

    You can also use memcached and load up your Apache/Lighttpd straight from memory. This a lot harder to configure and much more difficult to maintain. Guaranteed to be blazing fast!
    Last edited by InfiniteTech; 06-08-2012 at 12:00 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteTech View Post
    if the OP had posted a lot details regarding the content he is serving
    Sorry, a little more *basic* details. I will have a (another) managed server that will be for dynamic content delivery and mysql. This will be a LAMP system that is all done and maintained for me. There are no options to install something alternative such as nginx.

    For the future VPS I mentioned that I plan to set up myself for static files I will have it point all the static files (primarily images) to the users' browsers instead of having the managed server host these images. So primarily images and some client site java scripting.

  14. #14
    Have the memory leak issues with lighttpd been resolved?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,932
    Quote Originally Posted by mrtonyg View Post
    Have the memory leak issues with lighttpd been resolved?
    These "memory leaks" were never an issue unless you tried serving large files the wrong way.
    -Joe @ Secure Dragon LLC.
    + OpenVZ Powered by Wyvern | KVM | cPanel Hosting | Backup VPSs | LowEndBoxes | DDOS Protection
    + Florida | Colorado | Illinois | California | Oregon | Georgia | New Jersey | Arizona | Texas

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ZKuJoe View Post
    These "memory leaks" were never an issue unless you tried serving large files the wrong way.
    Joe, the memory leak problems are well documented. A google search brings up tons of results.

    I considered lighttpd briefly but discounted it and jumped to nginx (which I like).

    I would like to try lighttpd. Is there any place you can point me to or give somewhat specific tips on how to configure it to avoid this issue.

    By the way, I am a happy customer of SecureDragon!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by floridaz View Post
    For the future VPS I mentioned that I plan to set up myself for static files I will have it point all the static files (primarily images) to the users' browsers instead of having the managed server host these images. So primarily images and some client site java scripting.
    Pick any HTTP webserver and add Varnish to its front. You won't go wrong.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    InfiniteTech,

    I don't follow your logic. A lot of people use Varnish cache to serve as an intermediary cache for content that is originally *dynamic* - not necessarily static.

    If you already have an efficient web server such as nginx serving your static files, why do you want to put a reverse proxy in front of it? If it's for caching the images to RAM:

    a) the *nix file system is going to do that by itself provided you have enough RAM
    b) most web servers can be configured to do this without putting a whole layer in front of it

    So I'd really like to know why you're recommending Varnish...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    a) the *nix file system is going to do that by itself provided you have enough RAM
    b) most web servers can be configured to do this without putting a whole layer in front of it
    I initially thought about it. But the thread title says "vps" and not a dedicated server with 32 GB RAM.

    Consider running your webserver on memory vs. varnish, in a VPS scenario.

    I won't be surprised if the web-server brings the VM to its knees. Although it is possible to fine tune your HTTP server's configuration to suit memory needs, on Varnish its a single flag during service start up.

    After weighting the pros and cons, it seemed like suggesting Varnish was apt.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2011, 12:13 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-04-2011, 11:07 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2011, 02:44 PM
  4. Best solution to serve static-content very fast?
    By fiftyeight in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 04:14 PM
  5. Looking for high throughput VPS for static content
    By sangnom in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 03:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •