Forum: Ruby on Rails Apache vs. Lighttpd

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
81194a50c0f9bd95d7832a77fdf371bd?d=identicon&s=25 cool_screen_name90001 (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 22:05
(Received via mailing list)
I'm a long time user of Apache - first 1.3.x and then 2.x for about two
years now I guess. People
seem to be raving about Lighttpd, and, from what I've read, it appears
to perform much better than
Apache, especially with lots of connections*.
Is Lighttpd easier to configure, setup, etc.? Any other compelling
reasons to switch to it? I feel
like I have a lot of stuff added in to Apache (various mods, mod_rewrite
rules, etc.) - maybe use
them both in parallel?

thanks
csn


* Yesterday I received over 20,000 visits from Googlebot to one site,
and many more hits to other
sites from Googlebot and other bots - server load was around 8-10 most
of the day. (These sites
don't use much caching - client or server side - but I plan on switching
them to Rails and
utilizing its caching).
9e7c9c07e64a6b7b075097831c360d53?d=identicon&s=25 billkatz (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 22:29
(Received via mailing list)
I'm using lighttpd and it's very easy to configure for Rails use.
As for performance, you can read one case of Apache vs lighttpd at
Textdrive:
http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/44/taking-a-fu...

Regards, Bill
0ac5fecd7d407e631702c84f17fb3b31?d=identicon&s=25 miles.wu (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 22:56
(Received via mailing list)
Support for mod_proxy's rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.
Mod_spelling, mod_svn are both missing.

Apart from that I have found no reason to use apache any more. Lighttpd
is
faster, less of a memory hog and it is very easy to configure. The main
thing I like about lighttpd is its conditional based config file. You
can
even do nested conditionals, which allows you to do somethings you can't
do
in apache (like forcing a certain virtual host to use a https
connection).

For example to do a virtual host you do:

$HTTP['host'] =~ 'some regex expression' {
some stuff
like server.document-root = /some/where/else
or a fastcgi thing
}

Miles
5f9c010866ed7b4ceff994510de2ef8c?d=identicon&s=25 hipertracker (Guest)
on 2005-11-18 01:01
(Received via mailing list)
2005/11/17, Miles Wu <miles.wu@wu-home.co.uk>:

> Support for mod_proxy's rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.

It has mod_proxy module but it is very limited if compared to Apache.
It has also mod_rewrite but again it is very limited if compared to
Apache. E.g. there is no way for using lighttpd instead of Apache for
Zope/Plone. mod_rewrite can map only to local url. And mod_rewrite can
map only to IP instead of full URL.. I am using Plone with several
virtual hosts and one IP. Lighttpd cannot do
RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://host.domain:8080/$1 [P,L]
nor
ProxyPass /  http://host.domain:8080/

--
JZ
076d793369cf7c992cc3984e95cee196?d=identicon&s=25 stoyan (Guest)
on 2005-11-18 03:13
(Received via mailing list)
> Mod_spelling, mod_svn are both missing.
> ...
> Support for mod_proxy's rewriting rules in lighttpd is lacking.

We are usually combining it with reverse proxy (pound) - [
http://apsis.ch/pound/ ].
lighttpd (and apache if needed for something - svn etc.) started on
127.0.0.1, different ports. Based on url pound forward requests to
lighttpd or apache (or even resin for java stuff). Helps also with
load balancing/failover detection. Also pound handle all HTTPS stuff,
so even web servers with missing support for it (https) are OK.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.