That's why I said they have their pros and cons. Lighthttpd works best with static content for now. For dynamic websites, Apache is still better. Give it some time and lighthttpd won't be as light as it is now.
![]()
That's why I said they have their pros and cons. Lighthttpd works best with static content for now. For dynamic websites, Apache is still better. Give it some time and lighthttpd won't be as light as it is now.
![]()
Lighttpd and nginx are blazing fast whether they serve static content or not... wahahaha... dili ta mahuman sa lalis kay religion man ni nato... wahahahaha...
Anyway, poymode was asking how we can improve existing web servers. I can't think of any simple improvement on existing web servers right now since I'm a bit sleepy.Implementing a lightweight server (or modifying existing ones) that will work with alternative transport protocols such as SCTP would be very cool, but I think it's too advanced... I don't even know how to do it right now, unless I have lots and lots of time to read. I can't think of anything... I think I need to sleeep.... waaaaaa....
Benchmark result : Lighttpd vs Apache 1.3.36 vs Apache 2.2.2 - Web Hosting Talk - The largest, most influential web hosting community on the Internet
It's not a religion to me. I am just being practical and use what is right for my setup... improving a webserver can be done in a lot of ways. First is optimizing your system... another is upgrading your hardware. Doing both works best.![]()
How about making a webserver that can handle server push?
Similar Threads |
|