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
