Article:		The lighttpd Web Server
Subject:		lighttpd
Date:		2007-04-21 14:53:32
From:		mpalmer
Lighttpd reportedly suffers from memory leaks. It's configuration syntax is full of cruft. Another alternative with similar feature set is nginx. For me, setting up everything (proxy, php/fastcgi, https) was extremely smooth. I would suggest to check it out.

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

• lighttpd
  2007-05-04 19:43:59  lame_dude [View]
  
  
  Are you joking?Poor joke, duh.Lighttpd is serving in my internal 100Mbit network and after whole month of run time with quite heavy load it still uses just some 2 Mb of RAM when there is bunch of users downloading.Compared to apache it is really LIGHT.It's CPU and RAM use is virtually nothing - on any modern machine you will be limited by anything else (disk I\O, network bandwith, ...) but RAM and CPU will not be an issue with "lighty".Actually, bunch of users fails to cause lighttpd to load CPU even by 1% or waste more than couple megz RAM.You probably should be Google to see any noticeable resource use.At least, during load test it handles 1000 parallel requests as a joke :)
• lighttpd
  2007-05-04 19:49:26  lame_dude [View]
  
  
  Well, but I have to admit, nginx is good choice as well.It is also quite lightweight and benchmarks of these two are quite comparable.So, you have a choice.Don't you think it is cool?Just take a look on both and choose one which is better for you :).Choice is good, isn't it?

• lighttpd
  2007-04-30 14:17:09  wgs4u9fdg6 [View]
  
  
  memory leaks? Proof?
• lighttpd
  2007-05-04 19:54:52  lame_dude [View]
  
  
  It is doubtful he will have it.I'm running quite heavily loaded lighttpd on 100Mbit network and month or two of uptime isn't something uncommon.I never seen lighty eating lots of RAM.At very most it eats some couple of Mb which is pretty insignificant.I did not noticed any leaks so far.