Latest Announcemnent
New thread

which lighweight server to use?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16 comments
litespeed is great, the paid version that is.
the free one has limited concurrent connections.

so if you don't wanna pay, best options are lighttpd or nginx.
 
yes, but as i said, i don't have that many visitors. free 100 concurrent connections is more than enough.
As I understood, nginx uses more memory than litespeed.
 
I see a lot of opinions but why is it better? It has a lot of problems with scripts that use mod rewrites.

So an explanation other than the connections and number of sites that can be run would be appreciated.
 
Lock Down said:
I see a lot of opinions but why is it better? It has a lot of problems with scripts that use mod rewrites.

So an explanation other than the connections and number of sites that can be run would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I can't say I have had any problems with 'scripts' in the past and I've run alot through it. When combined with php-fpm, it will easily out-perform apache.

For large scripts like wordpress you can use try_files in nginx for basic seo urls. Rewrites are generally not hard when you know how.

It is also a very good reverse proxy caching server (it was originally built purely for this purpose). It is a bit like having webserver capabilities in Varnish.

I'm so used to nginx (started using it at stable version 5 or 6) that I'm not sure I would even know my way around an apache vhost config anymore.

Mutikasa said:
it is not insignificant, look at this http://serversreview.net/this-is-what-happened-between-apache-nginx-and-litespeed-free-edition
nginx : 285MB
litespeed: 140MB

but I can't find how much lighttpd uses
Click to expand...

No need to bother considering lighttpd as its not even being developed anymore. That is one of the best things about nginx, they operate with under a very fast version system.

Ram usage largely depends on the configuration. You shouldn't really need more than 2 worker processes (1000 connections each) and this would probably bring usage down.

As I said before, the issue with litespeed is that most of the decent features come at a premium. Why would you pay when you can get them all on nginx?
 
Mutikasa said:
lighttpd not developed? how come when the last version was in december.
I had some problems setup php with nginx before
Click to expand...

My apologies, I meant not as actively developed.

Both nginx and lighty proxy to external php interpreters like php-fpm, so the only part you could have gone wrong is in the nginx config, and thats pretty simple.

Code: 
[LEFT][URL="http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpCoreModule#location"]location[/URL] ~ \.php$ {   # Filter out arbitrary code execution   [URL="http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpCoreModule#location"]location[/URL] ~ \..*/.*\.php$ {[URL="http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpRewriteModule#return"]return[/URL] 404;}     [URL="http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpMainModule#include"]include[/URL] fastcgi_params;   [URL="http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpFcgiModule#fastcgi_pass"]fastcgi_pass[/URL]  127.0.0.1:9000; }
[/LEFT]
 
If you really want to get some speed and lightweight in there..

A setup such as:
apache (latest) run on other port + php 5.3 + xcache (there is more but this is a start) + nginx latest stable running on port 80 as proxy....

Then if your server has more then one core set the process workers for nginx to how many cores you have.. do small optimizations to nginx to cache the images and such..

By the time you know it... you will barely see a load until you really get alot of users..

Also a known trick is DO NOT ENABLE GZIP that is a very bad cpu hog if there is alot of visitors

edit: also you do not need to setup the php intepreter for nginx let apache handle php
 
I disagree. Letting apache near any decent webserver setup is a bad idea. PHP-FPM actually handles it better in my opinion. If you have Ubuntu, nginx even maintain their own PPA for php. So you can install php-fpm with one command.

Also, if you're going to use an opcode cache, my money is on APC (which is developed alongside php). Xcache is lighty's module and having used it, I can honestly say, it sucks.

As I said above, if you have a small to medium site, having over two worker processes is useless. They will just sit there eating ram, albeit a very small amount.
 
Well we all have our opinions, But nginx may handle php better in the end apache + nginx is a beast for regular web hosts which is why you never just see a webhost with only nginx...

Its not made to be a standalone server..
 
Oh, please don't mistake my comments for anger. Like you said, they are just my opinions.

The reason most webhosts (I assume you mean shared hosting) don't have nginx is that its not built into cpanel.
 
Nah im not taking it as anger..

Most as in all web hosts & dedicated+vps users all use a combination of 2.. Not 1..

cPanel can be run useing only litespeed/nginx/apache/lighttpd...

Its not hard.. But there is a reason that is a chosen combination.. Its a load balancer.. Nginx is only good for static content
 
From my own personal experience, I would recommened nginx. If you are uncomfortable with it or need a panel for most of your work, I would recommend using apache + cpanel + nginx (nginxcp) for your site.

Right now, our 8GB Ram and Quad core servers handles upto 10,000 connections with just around 20-25% load
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top