Re: notes on thttpd/lighttpd Re: Tux Crash (same as Thierry dM's?)

--===============0539475992==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_144536_16854713.1157486082887"

------=_Part_144536_16854713.1157486082887
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

my 5 cents:
1. apache + php seems to be the best alternative currently to serve php,
i also tried lighttpd, but did not go much since i need some more modules,
that needing more configuration, and stopped
2. on static files, i tried,

tux, thttpd, lighttpd
all comparable, but keep in mind that thttpd must be patched (i think the
best one is 2.21b branch) to solve these issues + performance increase,
thttpd is very near to tux performance,

I never suggest thttpd to serve php, it's far away from modern web
application platform

but yes, under normal conditions, none can beat tux, but i am really tried
to change kernel, apply patch, re-install system tests to see it stable, my
last condition is tux crashes in inregular times under heavy load,
k.

On 9/5/06, Kyrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I'd dearly like to get these TUX bugs fixed myself, but don't have the
> slightest idea where to start.
>
> Anyways, I've tried thttpd, and lighttpd on various different
> installations having abandoned TUX, and I've found both to be more than
> adequate at solving the Apache+PHP memory consumption issue, by
> offloading content to them. Speed is nothing to grumble about either.
>
> However two things of likely operational interest that I noted were:
>
> thttpd barfs on slightly malformed urls, eg. for:
>
> http://thttpd.mysite.com/images/mysite.gif
>
> It would barf on:
>
> http://thttpd.mysite.com//images/mysite.gif
>
> ... and refuse to serve the image. Although it wouldn't crash out and
> totally kill your server ;-)
>
> Also, I don't think thttpd has any equivalent behaviour to Apache's
> 'mod_status', where Lighttpd does have vaguely equivalent behaviour.
>
> K.
>
> > according to my tests, on static small files thttpd + keep alive patch
> > does give similar performance figures to tux,
> >
> > just my 5 cent idea and experience to share,
>
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
>

------=_Part_144536_16854713.1157486082887
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

my 5 cents:<br>1. apache + php seems to be the best alternative currently to serve php, <br>i also tried lighttpd, but did not go much since i need some more modules, that needing more configuration, and stopped<br>2. on static files, i tried,
<br><br>tux, thttpd, lighttpd <br>all comparable, but keep in mind that thttpd must be patched (i think the best one is 2.21b branch) to solve these issues + performance increase, thttpd is very near to tux performance,<br>
<br>I never suggest thttpd to serve php, it's far away from modern web application platform<br><br>but yes, under normal conditions, none can beat tux, but i am really tried to change kernel, apply patch, re-install system tests to see it stable, my last condition is tux crashes in inregular times under heavy load,
<br>k.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/5/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kyrian</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Folks,<br><br>I'd dearly like to get these TUX bugs fixed myself, but don't have the<br>slightest idea where to start.<br><br>Anyways, I've tried thttpd, and lighttpd on various different<br>installations having abandoned TUX, and I've found both to be more than
<br>adequate at solving the Apache+PHP memory consumption issue, by<br>offloading content to them. Speed is nothing to grumble about either.<br><br>However two things of likely operational interest that I noted were:<br><br>
thttpd barfs on slightly malformed urls, eg. for:<br><br><a href="http://thttpd.mysite.com/images/mysite.gif">http://thttpd.mysite.com/images/mysite.gif</a><br><br>It would barf on:<br><br><a href="http://thttpd.mysite.com//images/mysite.gif">
http://thttpd.mysite.com//images/mysite.gif</a><br><br>... and refuse to serve the image. Although it wouldn't crash out and<br>totally kill your server ;-)<br><br>Also, I don't think thttpd has any equivalent behaviour to Apache's
<br>'mod_status', where Lighttpd does have vaguely equivalent behaviour.<br><br>K.<br><br>&gt; according to my tests, on static small files thttpd + keep alive patch<br>&gt; does give similar performance figures to tux,<br>
&gt;<br>&gt; just my 5 cent idea and experience to share,<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tux-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list">
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_144536_16854713.1157486082887--


--===============0539475992==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
tux-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
--===============0539475992==--