Apache has the lions share of the market, but I still keep hearing about Lighttpd - the fact that Wikipedia is run off it and how its a better web server. What, specifically, is better about Lighttpd, and are there certain situations/scenarios where Lighttpd is better than Apache?
Question Details
Browse
Sign in to OStatic
close
Answers
Add AnswerBy an anonymous user on Apr. 08, 2008
From http://www.phpmagazine.net/2007/02/lighttpd_vs_apache.html
Lighttpd key features are security, speed, compliance, and flexibility. It have been optimized for high performance environments, with small memory footprint compared to other web-servers, effective management of the cpu-load, and advanced feature set
By an anonymous user on Apr. 08, 2008
The footprint is much smaller, and hence you don't need as much hardware to scale it. Right now, Apache's memory footprint can start to add up as the load grows.
Apache is a winner in terms of features and modules available, so it is like Swiss army knife, you can do whatever you want with it.
Lighthttpd, on the other hand, is small, so its memory and cpu consumptions are smaller.
But it doesn't provide you with flexibility of apache.
Right now, huge traffic sites mainly use a combination of apache and lighthttpd, letting apache to serve dynamic content (php, etc) and leaving all the static (images, js and css files) to lighthttpd
By an anonymous user on Aug. 01, 2008
It's mainly features vs performance. Lighttpd performs much better for web applications with lots of traffic, but Apache has many features and modules that you won't find for Lighttpd. I'd say that unless you need those features, use Lighttpd, especially for static content.
Lighttpd is more fast for static html pages.
performance
support user's number
less memory
less cpu times.
more light
Lighttpd is more fast,Apache is more stronger!
LightHttp is better than Apache in static web site.
Lighttpd is more fast for static html pages.
fast, light, simple configuration
thanks.
For perspective - LightHttp
faster.lighter.
the disadvantage is it's created to serve the STATIC content much faster then the apache. However when it goes about DYNAMIC content, I mean you PHP, Python, etc., the apache is usually better, cuz it has modules to make that scripts run just inside your apache process, that results a better performance. Lighty allows using them only over FastCGI - however sometimes it's enough.
So, apache rocks cuz it's the most featured - it has modules for everything. However if you dont need featurs, but only the speed in static content use lighty.
It's a good idea to use them together - apache for scripts/apps and lighty for their static content
Share your knowledge