Lightweight web servers

[BigBison]

Here's a nice roundup on alternatives to Apache:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-ltwebserv/index.html

[the_pm]

Wow - there are a lot more than I was aware! I'm a little surprised lighttpd is only the fifth most popular. I would have thought third after Apache and Windows.

[Odd Fact]

Pretty interesting, I would like to find more time and setup some play servers.

[BigBison]

This one didn't make the list, but I'm giving it a whirl:

http://www.acme.com/software/micro_httpd/

[Odd Fact]

The LiteSpeed guys were at HostingCon and I spent some time chatting. It is pretty slick and has a GUI interface at server level. It reads Apache config files making a change easier.

They had a demo server running to see the difference in process and loads. Also looks like php might run faster as well.

There is a license fee which is not too bad. The downside I see right now is that many providers are not going to provide support. I would like to try a litespeed server in a working environment and see what happens though.

[BigBison]

I've been using lighttpd on my Solaris machines, for quick-and-dirty file transfers over the LAN using wget. I notice there are lots of HowTos out there concerning building lighttpd on Solaris. Hint: Use the lighttpd package from the NetBSD "pkgscrc" collection (http://www.netbsd.org/docs/software/packages.html), it uses the show-options system for enabling things like FastCGI and SSL, easy as can be.

[the_pm]

Litespeed had a huge security hole in it that allowed visitors to execute any file as any other file. For example, you could execute a PHP file as a .txt, and view all of its contents.

I happened to view the config.php file for WordPress.org right before they closed the hole. I'm going to assume they changed their database connection information, and of course I'm not going to post that file here. But that was a scary hole!

[Cameron]

No love for nginx (http://nginx.net) it seems. I've been using it for a few projects in conjunction with Rails & Merb.

[VoxxitDesigns]

Apache is really fine if you tune it. I mean, I know that a lot of performance reviews for Apache are based on default compilations, but if you get rid of the majority of modules (like Lighttpd) and use threading, it's not that bad.

[BigBison]

I kept having problems with lighttpd (from pkgsrc) crashing on Solaris. Today I'm using boa:

http://www.boa.org/

Not many webservers can claim "since 1991".

[BigBison]

Apache is really fine if you tune it. I mean, I know that a lot of performance reviews for Apache are based on default compilations, but if you get rid of the majority of modules (like Lighttpd) and use threading, it's not that bad.

Oh, I don't think anyone meant to dis Apache. The key difference here is that there's a steep learning curve to get to where you can do that. There's something to be said for a tiny, fast, purpose-specific httpd that can be mastered in an afternoon and it's good to see so many flourishing out there.

Today, I came across 'wbox (http://www.hping.org/wbox/)' which is a new tool in my HTTP arsenal, I installed it on Interix on my XP machine. All I really wanted was to share files locally from the Interix filesystem without all the fuss of NFS but I hadn't had any luck with any other servers on the list here.

I found it in the pkgsrc-wip collection, same with boa:

http://pkgsrc.se/wip

I then used wbox to DoS boa, using it as a client not a server... nifty! 8) And, at 26KB with zero configuration, it took less than ten minutes to download, install and master. :thumbsup:

[deathshadow]

Oh, I don't think anyone meant to dis Apache. The key difference here is that there's a steep learning curve to get to where you can do that. There's something to be said for a tiny, fast, purpose-specific httpd that can be mastered in an afternoon and it's good to see so many flourishing out there.
Exactly - and I'd add to that somewhat, in that when the solution is a ball peen hammer, you don't go out and grab the 30lb sledge.

Offloading static content to another domain (or subdomain or even a different port) on the same server using a lightweight httpd alongside the more robust apache can GREATLY reduce the strain on an overloaded server, staving off the dreaded hardware upgrade for months, even years. If you've got an image heavy site where 90% of your traffic is fixed unchanging images do you really need the complete Apache overhead on every request? Of course not.

It's also a good stepping stone for people starting out with their own server - diving headfirst into apache config files is a bit like diving off a 100' cliff into the Colorodo in spring when you don't know how to swim. It takes years to reach true proficiency, and a lot of people just lack that time.

I was dissapointed to see my personal favorite - Xitami - not listed... But being it's effectively been abandonware since 2002 I can't really say I'm surprised. It was so promising for simple tasks - damned shame.

[the_pm]

Offloading static content to another domain (or subdomain or even a different port) on the same server using a lightweight httpd alongside the more robust apache can GREATLY reduce the strain on an overloaded server, staving off the dreaded hardware upgrade for months, even years.That's one of the most promising statements I've heard in a long time! I'm by no means a Linux expert (I'm barely a novice), so I'm curious how difficult it is to support various light versions with a good Apache basis. This enquiry for me so much as it is for working with our server admins. I'm wondering if it's worth considering setting up different Web server environments to handle specific applications, even on a per-server basis, and what kind of administrative nightmare this could make down the road (or whether it's fairly easy to manage). Any experience with this?