[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: notes on thttpd/lighttpd Re: Tux Crash (same as Thierry dM's?)

my 5 cents:
1. apache + php seems to be the best alternative currently to serve php,
i also tried lighttpd, but did not go much since i need some more modules, that needing more configuration, and stopped
2. on static files, i tried,

tux, thttpd, lighttpd
all comparable, but keep in mind that thttpd must be patched (i think the best one is 2.21b branch) to solve these issues + performance increase, thttpd is very near to tux performance,

I never suggest thttpd to serve php, it's far away from modern web application platform

but yes, under normal conditions, none can beat tux, but i am really tried to change kernel, apply patch, re-install system tests to see it stable, my last condition is tux crashes in inregular times under heavy load,

On 9/5/06, Kyrian <kyrian ore org> wrote:

I'd dearly like to get these TUX bugs fixed myself, but don't have the
slightest idea where to start.

Anyways, I've tried thttpd, and lighttpd on various different
installations having abandoned TUX, and I've found both to be more than
adequate at solving the Apache+PHP memory consumption issue, by
offloading content to them. Speed is nothing to grumble about either.

However two things of likely operational interest that I noted were:

thttpd barfs on slightly malformed urls, eg. for:


It would barf on:


... and refuse to serve the image. Although it wouldn't crash out and
totally kill your server ;-)

Also, I don't think thttpd has any equivalent behaviour to Apache's
'mod_status', where Lighttpd does have vaguely equivalent behaviour.


> according to my tests, on static small files thttpd + keep alive patch
> does give similar performance figures to tux,
> just my 5 cent idea and experience to share,

tux-list mailing list
tux-list redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]