[gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Bill Kenworthy]

Hi all,
	over the years when I need a web-server I have just used Apache.  I am
in the process of consolidating my separate services VM's for various
things into LXC containers and am looking for something a bit lighter if
its worthwhile.

I am currently using Apache for internal and external http/https static
pages, webdav and radicale (dav/wsgi calendar) sometimes using vhosts.

Is there something else much lighter weight than Apache for (each) of
these tasks? - doesn't have to be the same application as I want to
separate the tasks rather than have one huge complex Apache
configuration serving an extremely light load.

Nginx is an alternative for radicale (is it worth changing from one
large application to one almost as heavy?) but what else can do wsgi/dav?

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Jean-Christophe Bach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1491 bytes --]

* Bill Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> [28.06.2015. @05:45:37 +0800]:

> Hi all,
> 	over the years when I need a web-server I have just used Apache.  I am
> in the process of consolidating my separate services VM's for various
> things into LXC containers and am looking for something a bit lighter if
> its worthwhile.
> 
> I am currently using Apache for internal and external http/https static
> pages, webdav and radicale (dav/wsgi calendar) sometimes using vhosts.
> 
> Is there something else much lighter weight than Apache for (each) of
> these tasks? - doesn't have to be the same application as I want to
> separate the tasks rather than have one huge complex Apache
> configuration serving an extremely light load.
> 
> Nginx is an alternative for radicale (is it worth changing from one
> large application to one almost as heavy?) but what else can do wsgi/dav?
> 
> BillK

Hi Bill,

I am "self-hosting" a lighttpd server with a cal/card dav sever: Baikal
[1]. I also added a web (js) interface for it, in case of I would need
it: CalDavZAP [2] and CardDavMATE [3] which were unified by InfCloud
[4].
I chosed lighttpd because Apache became to heavy and to complex to
admin for a simple personal server.

Hope it will help you,

JC

[1] http://baikal-server.com
[2] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/caldavzap/ 
[3] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/carddavmate/ 
[4] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/infcloud/


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1857 bytes --]

On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 05:23:01 Jean-Christophe Bach wrote:
> * Bill Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> [28.06.2015. @05:45:37 +0800]:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 	over the years when I need a web-server I have just used Apache.  I am
> > 
> > in the process of consolidating my separate services VM's for various
> > things into LXC containers and am looking for something a bit lighter if
> > its worthwhile.
> > 
> > I am currently using Apache for internal and external http/https static
> > pages, webdav and radicale (dav/wsgi calendar) sometimes using vhosts.
> > 
> > Is there something else much lighter weight than Apache for (each) of
> > these tasks? - doesn't have to be the same application as I want to
> > separate the tasks rather than have one huge complex Apache
> > configuration serving an extremely light load.
> > 
> > Nginx is an alternative for radicale (is it worth changing from one
> > large application to one almost as heavy?) but what else can do wsgi/dav?
> > 
> > BillK
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I am "self-hosting" a lighttpd server with a cal/card dav sever: Baikal
> [1]. I also added a web (js) interface for it, in case of I would need
> it: CalDavZAP [2] and CardDavMATE [3] which were unified by InfCloud
> [4].
> I chosed lighttpd because Apache became to heavy and to complex to
> admin for a simple personal server.
> 
> Hope it will help you,
> 
> JC
> 
> [1] http://baikal-server.com
> [2] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/caldavzap/
> [3] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/carddavmate/
> [4] https://www.inf-it.com/open-source/clients/infcloud/

I am using apache, nginx, thttpd, boa.

I have also used lighttpd in the past.

For speed and features I would go with nginx.  Small footprint single threaded 
boa is also extremely fast.  YMMV.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: OT: webserver reccomendations

[Hans]

On 28/06/15 07:45, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 	over the years when I need a web-server I have just used Apache.  I am
> in the process of consolidating my separate services VM's for various
> things into LXC containers and am looking for something a bit lighter if
> its worthwhile.
>
> I am currently using Apache for internal and external http/https static
> pages, webdav and radicale (dav/wsgi calendar) sometimes using vhosts.
>
> Is there something else much lighter weight than Apache for (each) of
> these tasks? - doesn't have to be the same application as I want to
> separate the tasks rather than have one huge complex Apache
> configuration serving an extremely light load.
>
> Nginx is an alternative for radicale (is it worth changing from one
> large application to one almost as heavy?) but what else can do wsgi/dav?
>
> BillK
>
>
>
I use Debian 7 with Apache, Dovecot, etc. as Web, Mail, DNS, FTP server 
with 3 domains administered by ISPconfig running in a VirtualBox on top 
of Gentoo. Installation, configuration and maintenance is a piece of 
cake. Have a look at www.ispconfig.org.

ISPconfig used to support Gentoo. Should work on Gentoo if appropriate 
symlinks are created to emulate Debian or Ubunto.

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 29/06/15 02:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote:
> 
>>> Why did you stop using lighttpd?  
>>
>> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because,
>> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my
>> hand.  :-))
> 
> So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :)
> 
>> All these are good servers for particular use cases.  My use case for
>> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM.
>> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it.  
>>
>> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache.
>>
>> - nginx was light, fast and full of features.
>>
>> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden
>> on resources.  Slower than ligthttpd.
>>
>> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees.
>>
>> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years
>> ago.  I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and
>> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some
>> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in
> my neck of the woods...
> 
> 

same here!
I decided to start with lighttpd and it seems to do the job.  Will look
at Nginx next.

Thanks,
BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 247 bytes --]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:28:27 +0100, Mick wrote:

> I am using apache, nginx, thttpd, boa.
> 
> I have also used lighttpd in the past.

Why did you stop using lighttpd?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 16:05:41 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:28:27 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > I am using apache, nginx, thttpd, boa.
> > 
> > I have also used lighttpd in the past.
> 
> Why did you stop using lighttpd?

I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because, well ... 
I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my hand.  :-))

All these are good servers for particular use cases.  My use case for the 
lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM.  I tried 
thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it.  

- lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache.

- nginx was light, fast and full of features.

- thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden on 
resources.  Slower than ligthttpd.

- apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees.

Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years ago.  I 
went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and MEM% lowest among 
competitors. The task in hand was to serve some simple web pages with MRTG 
graphs on them.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote:

> > Why did you stop using lighttpd?  
> 
> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because,
> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my
> hand.  :-))

So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :)

> All these are good servers for particular use cases.  My use case for
> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM.
> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it.  
> 
> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache.
> 
> - nginx was light, fast and full of features.
> 
> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden
> on resources.  Slower than ligthttpd.
> 
> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees.
> 
> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years
> ago.  I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and
> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some
> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them.

Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in
my neck of the woods...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]

On Sunday 28 Jun 2015 14:26:06 Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 29/06/15 02:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:27:57 +0100, Mick wrote:
> >>> Why did you stop using lighttpd?
> >> 
> >> I avoided offering much explanation in my previous response because,
> >> well ... I would feel uncomfortable doing so without a pint in my
> >> hand.  :-))
> > 
> > So this is turning into a pub argument about which web server is best? :)
> > 
> >> All these are good servers for particular use cases.  My use case for
> >> the lighttpd was an embedded system with a 266Mhz SoC and 32MB of RAM.
> >> I tried thttpd, lighttpd, apache and nginx on it.
> >> 
> >> - lighttpd was heavier on memory usage, although not as bad as apache.
> >> 
> >> - nginx was light, fast and full of features.
> >> 
> >> - thttpd was very basic but got the job done with relatively low burden
> >> on resources.  Slower than ligthttpd.
> >> 
> >> - apache just about worked, but brought the little thing to its knees.
> >> 
> >> Don't ask me for benchmarks please, because this was done some years
> >> ago.  I went with nginx because it was faster and kept the CPU% and
> >> MEM% lowest among competitors. The task in hand was to serve some
> >> simple web pages with MRTG graphs on them.
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation, it appears I owe you a pint if you're ever in
> > my neck of the woods...
> 
> same here!
> I decided to start with lighttpd and it seems to do the job.  Will look
> at Nginx next.
> 
> Thanks,
> BillK


If I were to count the pints I owe you over the years for your kind help, the 
first round is definitely on me!  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: webserver reccomendations

[Nuno Magalhães]

Been happy with nginx ever since it wasn't 1.0 yet.
Curious about YAWS :)