Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    Nginx vs Litespeed vs Apache vs Cherokee vs Lighttpd vs IIS
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    Nginx vs Litespeed vs Apache vs Cherokee vs Lighttpd vs IIS

    GIANT_CRABGIANT_CRAB Member
    edited December 2012 in General

    Nginx is good at loading static pages.
    Litespeed is good at loading dynamic pages.
    Apache has the largest community.
    Cherokee is best at loading static and dynamic pages, however, its project has been abandoned. quite outdated. - https://github.com/cherokee/webserver/

    Which is the best and why?
    Begin war/argument/discussion.


    Scores so far

    Cherokee: 2
    Nginx: 11
    Apache: 2
    Litespeed: 1
    Lighttpd: 3
    Microsoft IIS: 1

    «1

    Comments

    • bamnbamn Disabled

      A-Patch-ee?

    • @bamn said: A-Patch-ee?

      Helicopter.

    • bamnbamn Disabled

      @GIANT_CRAB said: Helicopter.

      I thought they were a group of mighty warriors killed off by the common cold

    • I love Cherokee. Unsure what happened with development. It was mainly one fellow, Alvaro behind it and he went the employee route elsewhere and that seems to have absorbed all his time. Hoping Cherokee gets back on track. Their admin control is slick. Wish Nginx had something similar for an admin.

      Nginx is becoming my new go to. But I often use it stacked on top of Cherokee :) Nginx is the Swiss Army knife for all sorts of things. A tad of a pain getting up to speed with config options though.

      Apache, blech! Unsure why it is still being pushed by folks. It's a mess to deal with. Never liked how it gets configed.

      Litespeed? Still under development?

    • GIANT_CRABGIANT_CRAB Member
      edited December 2012

      @bamn said: I thought they were a group of mighty warriors killed off by the common cold

      Not really, http://people.apache.org/

      @pubcrawler said: Litespeed? Still under development?

      Not really, http://www.litespeedtech.com/overview.html

    • <web-server-wars>nginx uber alles</web-server-wars>

      nginx is great; Apache only when needed for awful software that for some reason you can't get to work properly with nginx.

      Litespeed scares me with its TOS regulation against using it for pornographic sites. It's not like I ever plan to host smut but still.

      "We are in a prison drama. This is like The Shawshank Redemption, only with more tunneling through shit and no fucking redemption."
    • SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member, Provider

      SimpleNode | VPS Hosting | KVM and OpenVZ | Dallas, TX | PayPal and Bitcoin accepted

    • AmitzAmitz Member
      edited December 2012

      I can only contribute my experiences with some of them. I am (as a hobby) responsible for the technical aspects of a busy non-profit adult gallery (Yeah, throw stones) and the content is half static, half dynamic. The site sees around 2-3 million hits a day and is quite "special interest"-like. Average image size is 500KB, requests are done dynamically via PHP.

      Apache / PHP:
      Tried it with every possible configuration. Was seeking help of several well-known managed providers. In the end, the site needed a fat quad-core dedicated server to cope with the load. I am quite sure that Apache would have been able to handle the thing right. I just did not found out how. ;)

      Apache / PHP / Varnish:
      The server had around 2 GB unused memory, so I tried to add Varnish. That decreased the load by 50%. Great thing, in general. But it caused some problems due to the caching and Varnish can be a pain to configure. In the end, it was more hassle than everything else. I decided to give up, even though the results were good.

      Litespeed:
      Switched to Litespeed hoping to be able to bring down the load and to downgrade to a cheaper server (non-profit project, as said). Indeed, Litespeed handled the load way better than Apache (decrease of around 15-20%). But: It costs money AND adult content is not allowed by LiteSpeed's TOS. So that wasn't an alternative. And to be honest: Compared with the combination below, LiteSpeed is not worth the money IMHO. It is, on the other hand, VERY EASY to configure and Apache compatible in many fields.

      Nginx / PHP-FPM / APC:
      Switched to Nginx in combination with PHP-FPM and APC. That was the bomb. What shall I say - The site has more visitors than ever and the server load has dropped by at least 50-70%. The website now runs flawless on a VPS with 512 MB RAM. Costs dropped by 90%. Wonderful. I would recommend that combination to everyone running an image gallery. However, configuring Nginx sometimes reminds me of the pain I felt with Varnish.

      "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.", Stephen Hawking, 2017. Join the Amitz party here.

    • @Amitz, thanks for the great review for Apache, Ngnix and Litespeed.

    • eva2000eva2000 Member
      edited December 2012

      heavy PHP intensive sites and/or heavy mod_rewrite/htaccess support needed
      => Litespeed > Nginx/php-fpm

      everything else (particularly static file serving)
      => Nginx

      • although Litespeed static file serving easily matches Nginx just Nginx is free
      • when i mean heavy PHP intensive sites = 2,000 to 13,000 php requests/second

      My thoughts on Litespeed (Litespeed Cache), Apache + Varnish Cache and Nginx at vbtechsupport.com/33/ and webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7577198&postcount=10.

      very old static file benchmarks for apache vs nginx vs litespeed

      i.imgur.com/XymWU.png

      * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
      * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
    • heavy PHP intensive sites and/or heavy mod_rewrite/htaccess support needed
      => apache +Varnish + apc + php-fpm
      else
      => Nginx + apc + php-fpm

    • @eva2000: Interesting read about Litespeed! Thank you!

      "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.", Stephen Hawking, 2017. Join the Amitz party here.

    • I never needed anything else than apache, all my sites can run in 128 mb with apache :)

      Extremist conservative user, I wish to preserve human and civil rights, free speech, freedom of the press and worship, rule of law, democracy, peace and prosperity, social mobility, etc. Now you can draw your guns.

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider

      /me searches for Lighttpd in the list and can't find it...

    • As @joepie91 says, nobody loves lighttpd?

      © 2011-2019 eLohkCalb

    • Apache was the very first web server I used and I stuck with Apache for quite some time. It worked with pretty much every script I tried to install without any issues. Over time I got tired of configuring all of the modules and everything and tried out Nginx a few years ago.

      Since then I have been running Nginx wherever possible. It seems to use less memory, be easier to configure, and is typically faster. The only problem is that sometimes it can be less compatible with certain scripts so I always have to have at least one Apache server on one of my VPSs to handle those scrips. I have used Lighttpd in the past and it's great for something that just installs and doesn't eat up a lot of memory, but configuring Nginx to use that same very little amount of memory isn't very difficult so I usually just go with Nginx.

    • IshaqIshaq Member, Provider
      edited December 2012

      Nginx or Lighttpd. But I use Apache too D:

      But vote for nginx.

      [BudgetNode] DDoS Protected. 7 Locations (US/EU). Check out our latest offer!
    • @eva2000 said: very old static file benchmarks for apache vs nginx vs litespeed

      i.imgur.com/XymWU.png

      Hoyl sheet, Litespeed has amazing performances but Cherokee could outdo that.

    • IshaqIshaq Member, Provider

      @GIANT_CRAB said: Lighthttpd: 1

      It's Lighttpd

      [BudgetNode] DDoS Protected. 7 Locations (US/EU). Check out our latest offer!
    • SpeedBusSpeedBus Member, Provider

      Cherokee all the way, really easy to setup and well the webUI is pretty nice, they recently moved their tracker to GitHub according to their mailing list, and updates continue there, https://github.com/cherokee/webserver

      Performance is much better than Apache and LiteSpeed, It might be equal or better when compared to lighttpd but I doubt it's better than Nginx.

      +1 to Cherokee from me !

      CrownCloud | Los Angeles, California | Frankfurt, Germany | Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    • @SpeedBus said: Performance is much better than Apache and LiteSpeed, It might be equal or better when compared to lighttpd but I doubt it's better than Nginx.

      +1 to Cherokee from me !

      Cherokee master race.

    • What about Apache 2.4? It's said to bring better performance over past versions.

    • rm_rm_ Member
      edited December 2012

      I use Lighttpd everywhere, not sure why would anyone prefer anything else. :)

      I tried to use Nginx briefly, but felt too awkward to set-up and configure, compared to Lighttpd. And it does not provide any benefit to justify the switch. (No, it's not faster than Lighttpd, of if it is, then not by much and I don't care).

      Regarding Cherokee, I concluded that the author is insane when at some version he switched to a hideous format configs and said that from now on the primary method to set up the web server would be via the web UI, and editing configs directly is discouraged. Also since it is developed by one person and has a small user base, I can only imagine what kind of horrible security holes it might have.

      Apache is just way too huge and complex for pretty much any task, at least among those that you might want to do on a LEB.

    • IshaqIshaq Member, Provider

      @GIANT_CRAB said: Ngnix: 5

      Nginx, and thread is a typo too.

      [BudgetNode] DDoS Protected. 7 Locations (US/EU). Check out our latest offer!
    • jcalebjcaleb Moderator

      @rm_ said: I use Lighttpd everywhere, not sure why would anyone prefer anything else. :)

      How to do something like fastcgi_cache in nginx to lighttpd?

    • Im using lighttpd after apache on my control panel. It was much better and faster than apache and was easier to setup than nginx.

      Servitor.io - Server and website monitoring. Free to use!

    • rm_rm_ Member
      edited December 2012

      @jcaleb said: How to do something like fastcgi_cache in nginx to lighttpd?

      I tried to use Nginx briefly, and you expect me to know what "fastcgi_cache" is, or what it does? Well from the name I assume it caches fastcgi; there is ModCache in Lighttpd, there is also modules like XCache and APC in PHP.

    • RophRoph Member
      edited December 2012

      I use Nginx/PHP-FPM on all of my LEBs.

      For my "big" server, Nginx serves as a static request serving reverse proxy to Apache/mod_PHP/Xcache.

    • I just love nginx. When I started out setting up my first forum I did it with the software already running, which was Apache. It was slow and hard to configure in my experience. Then I searched a bit around and found nginx, the installation and configuration was easy and everything sped up amazingly. It might just have been that Apache wasn't configured right for my server at the time or perhaps I had too little knowledge, but that was when I got to nginx. For now I don't want anything else again.

      Their support IRC channel is also great. Every time the people there helped me out almost instantly with every problem I had.

    • eva2000eva2000 Member
      edited December 2012

      @GIANT_CRAB said: Hoyl sheet, Litespeed has amazing performances but Cherokee could outdo that.

      hmmm, never used Cherokee so probably something to try

      all i know is Litespeed can easily handle 10-12 million unique ip visitors per month (~75 million pageviews/month) for vbulletin forum on a single Intel Nehalem based quad core (8 cpu threads) server web server (with dedicated db server).

      From my own experience for php heavy dynamic sites, 1x Litespeed web server (without Litespeed cache) can replace:

      • 6x apache web servers load balanced OR
      • 4x nginx/php-fpm web servers load balanced (php-fpm bottleneck - most php-fpm folks scale out adding more php-fpm nodes to handle the extra php load or use fastcgi_cache (Litespeed has equivalent Litespeed cache for php too) for php but with very low TTL cache values to keep from serving stale data)

      when i mean heavy PHP intensive sites = 2,000 to 13,000 php requests/second (APC Cache already implemented)

      * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
      * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
    • JacobHJacobH Member
      edited December 2012

      http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-web-server-release-log.html still seems in development for me :)

      @eva2000 said: heavy PHP intensive sites and/or heavy mod_rewrite/htaccess support needed

      => Litespeed > Nginx/php-fpm

      everything else (particularly static file serving)

      => Nginx

      Agreed

    • GIANT_CRABGIANT_CRAB Member
      edited December 2012

      If you meant development as beta, you're wrong.
      If you meant development as constantly updating, you're correct.

      English is such as pain.

    • I think most of the LET community will favour the least cost approach anyway = nginx :)

      * Centmin Mod Project (HTTP/2 support + ngx_pagespeed + Nginx Lua + Vhost Stats)
      * Centmin Mod LEMP Stack Quick Install Guide
    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider

      @rm_ said: I tried to use Nginx briefly, but felt too awkward to set-up and configure, compared to Lighttpd. And it does not provide any benefit to justify the switch. (No, it's not faster than Lighttpd, of if it is, then not by much and I don't care).

      nginx is significantly faster (and lighter) than lighttpd on serving static files. The reason I prefer lighttpd is mostly because 1. it's far easier to configure and runs well out of the box, and 2. it seems to take a much saner (and lighter) approach to dealing with PHP and such.

    • I think that Litespeed is an overkill for LEB world and a solution for dedicated only.
      At the end if i need a solution for 1 million unique per month i choose what package (license server time ...) cost me less.

    • LazyZhuLazyZhu Member
      edited December 2012

      @rm_
      Nginx is much easier than lighttpd to develop modules, which is very important for people who want to extend functions as needs.
      By far, there already have many useful modules. For example, The HttpLuaModule embed the power of Lua into nginx, so you can call external C functions by luajit's FFI library.

      So Nginx +1.

    • IIS. It feels good to have a job.

    • @gubbyte said: IIS. It feels good to have a job.

      Damn Microsoft.

    • PHP web serving study from 2010
      http://www.saltwaterc.ro/wp-download/documents/PHP_web_serving_study.pdf
      2 years ago but real (for me)

      Lighttpd
      Nginx
      maybe hiawatha

    • sleddogsleddog Member
      edited December 2012

      @GIANT_CRAB said: Nginx is good at loading static pages.

      Litespeed is good at loading dynamic pages.
      Apache has the largest community.
      Cherokee is best at loading static and dynamic pages, however, its project has been abandoned. quite outdated. - https://github.com/cherokee/webserver/

      Which is the best and why?

      If by "dynamic pages" you mean PHP, then none of these webservers natively support it. They all depend on some form of (external) PHP implementation. So the question becomes: what is the best way to implement PHP? And secondarily, which web servers support it?

      The answer to the first part is easy: php-fpm. And more specifically, PHP 5.4 is significantly faster and leaner (less memory usage) than any preceding version.

      Regards to the second part: nginx supports php-fpm. Other webservers probably also support it, but I haven't looked.

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider

      @sleddog said: The answer to the first part is easy: php-fpm.

      I think you mean FastCGI. php-fpm is just a FastCGI process manager.

    • @joepie91 said: I think you mean FastCGI. php-fpm is just a FastCGI process manager.

      Most package managers will identify it as php-fpm or php5-fpm. Which is different in most cases from php-cgi. Confusion exists.

      Do you want to add something of value to the discussion, or just argue semantics? Yes, FPM = fast process manager.

    • @GIANT_CRAB said: @pubcrawler said: Litespeed? Still under development?

      Not really, http://www.litespeedtech.com/overview.html

      Eh? LS is still developed:

      http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-sapi-release-log.html

      For LET support, please visit the interim support desk.

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider
      edited December 2012

      @sleddog said: Most package managers will identify it as php-fpm or php5-fpm. Which is different in most cases from php-cgi. Confusion exists.

      Do you want to add something of value to the discussion, or just argue semantics? Yes, FPM = fast process manager.

      Seeing as lighttpd by default uses FastCGI (just as fpm does) but without using fpm, this is sort of an important distinction to make.

      But go ahead, believe that it doesn't matter what words you use even if they are blatantly incorrect. After all, words and the associated meanings don't serve a purpose in modern language.

      EDIT: Oh, by the way, when you install PHP for use with lighttpd on Debian, you install php5-cgi, not php5-fpm.

    • My epic sauce setup:

      • nginx serving static files
      • apache 2.4 with latest stable PHP
      • when a static file was not found, nginx will reverse proxy to the apache which can then serve a PHP page or a 404 page.
    • @joepie91 : Why do you attempt to create an argument in seemingly every thread? Honestly it's beyond my understanding.

      If you wish to address the thread topic, and add something of value based on your experience, please do so.

      If you want to continue sniping at me, I'll just ignore you.

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider
      edited December 2012

      @sleddog said: @joepie91 : Why do you attempt to create an argument in seemingly every thread? Honestly it's beyond my understanding.

      If you wish to address the thread topic, and add something of value based on your experience, please do so.

      If you want to continue sniping at me, I'll just ignore you.

      You are the one causing the argument here. I just corrected something that wasn't correct in your post, without any further comments, to prevent others from getting incorrect information. You decided to complain about it and turn it into an argument. Don't try to shift the blame on me now.

      EDIT: You may also notice that I already posted my experiences earlier in this topic, not to mention that said correction is also a contribution to the thread. I'm really not quite sure what you're going on about.

    • Both of you. Stop. Now. Please.

    • @Divinite said: Both of you. Stop. Now. Please.

      I've stopped :) I tried to offer some advice regarding the original thread topic, then joe waded in with his criticisms. I have nothing more to add, as it's impossible to carry on a sane conversation when big joe enters the fray ;)

      Cheers.

    • @sleddog, not necessary. Please don't think I am stupid and can't see that you're trying to get the last word in. Just stop.

    Sign In or Register to comment.