# Pound+Mongrel vs. Lighttpd+Pound+Mongrel **URL:** \ **Category:** Deployment\ **Created:** [February 5, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478 "2007-02-05T05:23:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/1 "2007-02-05T05:23:46Z")
I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but is Mongrel any worse? Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain? ---
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 6:42am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/2 "2007-02-05T06:42:49Z")
On 2/4/07, sserdyuk [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but > is Mongrel any worse? > Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain? Mongrel is much worse than lighty for static content. – Rick O. [http://weblog.techno-weenie.net](http://weblog.techno-weenie.net) [http://mephistoblog.com](http://mephistoblog.com) ---
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 7:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/3 "2007-02-05T07:36:52Z")
Mongrel was around 4-10x slower for the tests I did for static content. I think I posted those to this list before. Later, Vish ---
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 5:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/4 "2007-02-06T05:36:55Z")
sserdyuk wrote: > I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but > is Mongrel any worse? > Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain? When it’s possible, try to server static content (a la “public/”) with something else. Nginx, Lighttpd, and Apache can do this for you. If you’re not serving too much, you can probably get away with Mongrel doing it… but it’s less than ideal. Robby – Robby R. [http://www.robbyonrails.com/](http://www.robbyonrails.com/) > **[Planet Argon](https://www.planetargon.com/)** > > Planet Argon is a Ruby on Rails development agency specializing in maintenance and support for existing Rails apps. Based in Portland, OR, Planet Argon has been a member of the Rails community since 2004. ---
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 11:56am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/5 "2007-02-06T11:56:01Z")
This guys are reporting 4K requests per second (48 Mongrels) Looks like their next iteration will be tunning for static assets. it will be interesting to the see the difference in this scale. A brief update with some numbers for hardware load-balanced mongrels [http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels](http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels) ---
**Author:** ![sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sserdyuk](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sserdyuk)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2007, 2:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/pound-mongrel-vs-lighttpd-pound-mongrel/84478/6 "2007-02-07T14:07:35Z")
Thank you for your answers, gentlemen.