OStatic

By 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.

By Dmitri Muntean on Apr. 23, 2008

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.

By akan dfxs on Aug. 28, 2008

Lighttpd is more fast for static html pages.

By Chen Bin on Aug. 28, 2008

performance

By Chen Bin on Aug. 28, 2008

support user's number

By Chen Bin on Aug. 28, 2008

less memory

By Chen Bin on Aug. 28, 2008

less cpu times.

By Chen Bin on Aug. 28, 2008

more light

By kan guo on Aug. 28, 2008

Lighttpd is more fast,Apache is more stronger!

By cnshirui on Aug. 28, 2008

LightHttp is better than Apache in static web site.

By molin show on Aug. 28, 2008

Lighttpd is more fast for static html pages.

By pickerel yee on Aug. 28, 2008

fast, light, simple configuration

By J Lee on Aug. 29, 2008

thanks.

By Gleb Zgonikov on Aug. 29, 2008

For perspective - LightHttp

By leehj hj on Sep. 01, 2008

faster.lighter.

By Philip Rud on Sep. 02, 2008

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