On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I've said this before, but I think this is not a very rational claim.
> Network servers are actually pretty hard to get right and HTTP is no
> longer very simple. More to the point, there's nothing "heavy" about
> apache/mod_perl compared to other web servers + FastCGI. An
> event-based server like Lighttpd will have better performance than
> Apache 2's worker MPM (the recommended choice for front-end proxies)
> on static files, but who has a bottleneck on static files these days?

At ApacheCon, the subject of Lighttpd came up in comparison to Apache.
Paul Querna remarked that Apache and Lighttpd are about the same
speed since they have basically the same system calls. Lighttpd slows
down though when you have to stop it and apply security patches; count
the number of times you find the word attacker and vulnerability on
the patches linked to this page - http://www.lighttpd.net/download

Another good counter argument to those who say they would rather use
something instead of Apache/mod_perl is "Have you tried it server X
instead of Apache/mod_perl?". Then count the number of crickets you
hear chirping; a good number of people who have told me they would
rather use server X haven't taken the time to set it up and try it
out. After all, FastCGI must be Fast, right?