Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 20:58 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > I don't think that this kind of FUD about Apache is very > constructive. Just because lighttpd has a "light" in its name it > doesn't mean that Apache is a slow huge beast. That is nonsense. And just because Apache is famous doesn’t mean it’s a silver bullet either. > Apache is modular. You can decide what you want to use and what > not. It's easy to configure Apache in away that it is perfectly > suitable even for embedded use -- and I doubt it would be much slower > or more resource-hogging than any other httpd. Figures show it. Apache will use at least 4MB of RSS on my systems, where lighttpd uses around 2. As for benchmarks, see for example http://www.cherokee-project.com/benchmarks.html - most other benchmarks you can find will show the same kind of ratio between Apache and lighttpd. > So, unless you have rational arguments, i.e. real numbers how much > "faster" and "lighter" and "less error-prone" lighttpd actually is > then all the noise about lighttpd (or Cherokee) is just noise. Faster and lighter can easily be shown by benchmarks. As for less error-prone, you should just have a look at a typical lighttpd configuration file. Currently I have a complicated setup with many vhosts and I can’t imagine how much work it would take to achieve the same with Apache. > And > even if Apache was a bit slower, you get so much more for it when it > comes to functionality and well-tested-ness. You might be right about well-testedness, but about functionality I beg to disagree; until very recently Apache didn’t even support FastCGI, and for most things they are functionally equivalent. > Please, think twice before blindly believing that something is oh such > much lighter or oh so much faster just because some people who wrote > it like to use the word "lightweight". Let's stay rational! It is pretty insulting to assume I’m saying it because of what I’ve read. I’m saying it because I use both of them everyday. And frankly, there’s one of them that I’d like not to see anymore. It’s not that Apache is bad – I’d be pretty happy if all software was bad like that — but it’s not as flexible as other solutions. Now, I don’t think this is the right place to troll about webservers, but you don’t need to climb on your high horse just because someone suggests another technical solution. > Especially since the Apache support is already there, it is written. If people are interested, I guess I could do the porting to lighttpd, it doesn’t look too complicated. Maybe seeing it in action would be more convincing. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=