Apache vs Lighttpd

[mephisto]

I've just installed lighttpd and done some benchmark tests to compare it with apache. My test was to serve a css file, so server side logic going here, just plan text.

My first test was with keep-alives off

Apache

# ab -c 100 -n 1000 http://tdd.org.uk/css/style.css
...
Requests per second:    7391.09 [#/sec] (mean)

Lighttpd

# ab -c 100 -n 1000 http://tdd.org.uk:82/css/style.css
...
Requests per second:    7267.92 [#/sec] (mean)

So at first they are about the same, then I used keep-alives in my test.

Apache

# ab -c 100 -n 1000 -k http://tdd.org.uk/css/style.css
...
Requests per second:    12578.93 [#/sec] (mean)

Lighttpd

# ab -c 100 -n 1000 -k http://tdd.org.uk:82/css/style.css
...
Requests per second:    16324.93 [#/sec] (mean)

Once keep-alives are turned on, lighttpd performs much better than Apache giving better requests per second. I configured apache and lighttpd to have the same keep-alives settings, max number etc so to keep a fair test.

One thing to note is that each apache child process uses approximatly 95MB of memory, whereas each lighthttpd process uses about 3MB of memory.

There are probably things apache can do that lightttpd can't, but for pretty standard to mid-advanced stuff (yes you can still do rewrites, php etc) then lighttpd does seem to win.

These tests were all done on a L-VPS Hosting-01 VPS Hosting.

[eUKhost.com]

Hello Robert,

Here's what one of our System Admins have said :-

"One thing to note is that each apache child process uses approximately 95MB of memory, whereas each lighthttpd process uses about 3MB of memory."

[mephisto]

Originally Posted by eUKHost.com

Here's what one of our System Admins have said :-

"One thing to note is that each apache child process uses approximately 95MB of memory, whereas each lighthttpd process uses about 3MB of memory."

I'm a bit confused, that's what I said....

[eUKhost.com]

Originally Posted by mephisto

I'm a bit confused, that's what I said....

my mistake

Not sure what went wrong with me when I replied.

[envygeeks]

Let me guess, you didn't disable all the modules so UNLIKE Lighttpd, Apache had all it's modules running? You didn't list to conf files so I can't confirm if this is true, and listing them now won't help because it could be a setup. I'm not saying Apache is better then Lighttpd or Vice Versa I'm just saying, I doubt it was actually truly fair. Real benchmarking and testing requires a lot more then default installs with and without fcgi-d and keep-alive. Everybody knows that Apache has more going on by default then Lighttpd because Apache is Corporate aimed and Lighttpd isn't (for the most part).

On that note, if one of your system admins at eukHost can't clean up Apache to use a slim amount of Memory for a shared or corporate environment, he needs to be fired because that is Apache and HTTPD 101 material. We learn that in basic Administration.

[mephisto]

Originally Posted by envygeeks

Let me guess, you didn't disable all the modules so UNLIKE Lighttpd, Apache had all it's modules running?

Erm not exactly, I compile apache from source, so do use a pre-packages apache. I disabled the php module, which is the only loadable module I normally used. As for lighttpd, I opened up all similar modules that were compiled into apache, eg. mod_rewrite.

Originally Posted by envygeeks

I'm not saying Apache is better then Lighttpd or Vice Versa I'm just saying, I doubt it was actually truly fair. Real benchmarking and testing requires a lot more then default installs with and without fcgi-d and keep-alive. Everybody knows that Apache has more going on by default then Lighttpd because Apache is Corporate aimed and Lighttpd isn't (for the most part).

I'm not saying one is better than the other either, I'm just providing some of my test results. Neither of these are default installs either, I just tried to make them as close to each other as possible.

If you like I could do the test again, but turn everything off, so they are just capable of serving static files. What else would you like me to benchmark as part of the tests?

Originally Posted by envygeeks

On that note, if one of your system admins at eukHost can't clean up Apache to use a slim amount of Memory for a shared or corporate environment, he needs to be fired because that is Apache and HTTPD 101 material. We learn that in basic Administration.

This is nothing to do with eUKHosts, this is purely my own doing. I don't work for eUKHosts, I just rent a VPS Hosting from them, but inside the VPS Hosting eUKHosts haven't configured a thing, like I mentionned above, I compile from source.