Results 1 to 19 of 19
-
06-07-2012, 10:33 AM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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!
-
06-07-2012, 10:46 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,816
varnish?
-
06-07-2012, 11:40 AM #3Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 471
thttpd serves static content great, but nginx is a fine candidate.
-
06-07-2012, 11:45 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-07-2012, 11:49 AM #5Newbie
- 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.
-
06-07-2012, 11:54 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 622
Frank Laszlo - Developer
Franksworld Solutions, LLC
-
06-07-2012, 08:35 PM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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!!
-
06-07-2012, 10:58 PM #8Total Nerd
- 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
-
06-07-2012, 11:27 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-07-2012, 11:45 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,435
+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.
-
06-07-2012, 11:47 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Grand Rapids, Mi
- Posts
- 1,200
IonVz - Nginx/FreeBSD/VPS Consulting | VPSNodeBox - Managed Support Representative
-
06-07-2012, 11:54 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,435
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.
-
06-08-2012, 09:03 AM #13Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 73
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.
-
06-08-2012, 11:01 AM #14WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Posts
- 109
Have the memory leak issues with lighttpd been resolved?
-
06-08-2012, 01:37 PM #15Total Nerd
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Florida
- Posts
- 1,932
-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
-
06-08-2012, 07:02 PM #16WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Posts
- 109
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!
-
06-08-2012, 07:43 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,435
-
06-08-2012, 08:11 PM #18Eternal Member
- 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...
-
06-08-2012, 08:32 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,435
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
-
Swiftway 100TB quality CDN for the best price - streaming content or static content
By swiftnoc in forum Other Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 10-08-2011, 12:13 PM -
Swiftway 100TB quality CDN for the best price - streaming content or static content
By swiftnoc in forum Other Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 10-04-2011, 11:07 AM -
Swiftway 100TB quality CDN for the best price - streaming content or static content
By swiftnoc in forum Other Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 09-30-2011, 02:44 PM -
Best solution to serve static-content very fast?
By fiftyeight in forum Web HostingReplies: 10Last Post: 08-26-2011, 04:14 PM -
Looking for high throughput VPS for static content
By sangnom in forum VPS HostingReplies: 6Last Post: 09-19-2008, 03:04 PM