# Lighttpd vs apache **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [August 31, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107 "2006-08-31T18:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/1 "2006-08-31T18:10:29Z")
Hi i am new to ruby on rails and i want host my own server on ruby on rails but i need small clarification about which webserver is best LIGHTTPD or APACHE i have read some mixed reaction on lighttpd and apache … some say lighttpd is fast . and some say apache is fast if we configure it properly . what to the geeks of this group have to say 🙂 is ruby on rails relly fast on lighttp ? Are the benchmarks on the lighttpd site really fake or real [benchmark - Lighttpd - fly light](http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/) –GFAD ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/2 "2006-08-31T18:18:00Z")
coolest geek wrote: > Hi > > i am new to ruby on rails and i want host my own server on ruby on > rails > but i need small clarification about which webserver is best LIGHTTPD > or > APACHE Litespeed ([litespeedtech.com](http://litespeedtech.com)). ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 12:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/3 "2006-09-02T12:39:26Z")
To behonest, most people now will be using a load ballencer out front, and using a combo of lighty (for static), mongrel (for rails), and possible tomcat (for java) if there so inclined. Having this kind of set up makes you far more flexible as if you add backend servers the load balencer can distribute over those multi servers. Im running Pound, lighty, mongrel cluster, and resin, over 3 servers, works great, nice and quick. Everyone will tell you different things, however FCGI is quickly becomming a depreciated way of serving rails apps - zed shaws mongrel server is awsomely quick for server rails / camping / nitro apps. As with anything, its all in the tuning and configuration. Cheers Tim ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/4 "2006-08-31T22:00:46Z")
coolest geek wrote: > Hi > > i am new to ruby on rails and i want host my own server on ruby on > rails > but i need small clarification about which webserver is best LIGHTTPD > or > APACHE > > i have read some mixed reaction on lighttpd and apache … > some say lighttpd is fast . and some say apache is fast if we configure > it > properly . > what to the geeks of this group have to say 🙂 > > is ruby on rails relly fast on lighttp ? > Are the benchmarks on the lighttpd site really fake or real > [http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/](http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/) > > –GFAD Lighty rules! Just the other day I struggled with a deployment of the new WebOrb for rails stuff on Apache, and couldn’t find any answers as to why it wasn’t working when it worked locally, and the rest of the rails app was working with the apache deployment. Wound up using apache to proxy it to lighty, and all was well. Still have no clue why Apache was defiant. Didn’t have to do anything differently to have it work in Lighty. jp ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/5 "2006-09-02T18:38:42Z")
On Aug 31, 2006, at 17:51, coolest geek wrote: > i have read some mixed reaction on lighttpd and apache … > some say lighttpd is fast . and some say apache is fast if we > configure it properly . Here’s a thought; they are both fast. > is ruby on rails relly fast on lighttp ? Yes. > Are the benchmarks on the lighttpd site really fake or real > [http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/](http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/) If you don’t believe them, Google around for other benchmarks. They should be easy to come by. Or test yourself. – Jakob S. - [http://mentalized.net](http://mentalized.net) ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/6 "2006-09-02T14:18:22Z")
Litespeed +1 Andreas S. wrote: > coolest geek wrote: Litespeed ([litespeedtech.com](http://litespeedtech.com)). ---
**Author:** ![coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/48db29/32.png) [@coolest\_geek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/coolest_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/lighttpd-vs-apache/67107/7 "2006-09-04T18:03:47Z")
On Saturday 02 September 2006 13:10, Marston wrote: > Litespeed +1 > +1 here too; I’ve tried everything bar the kitchen sink and have found > litespeed with either lsapi or proxying to multiple mongrels to be the > most > stable and easy to deploy/manage if you don’t need lots of backend servers lsapi is really fast and easy to set up, and litespeed itself is pretty lightweight on resources (comparable to lighty) - it also has decent equivalency with apache for common htaccess type stuff lighttpd still has issues with it’s proxy module (fix is imminent afaik) so avoid using it in that role like the plague