Le Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Toni Mueller ecrivait :
quoted text
> My experience from running some low-traffic sites with both nginx and
> lighttpd is that nginx is by far easier to handle, more robust, and
> also more flexible in its configuration, and I hope to get rid of
> lighttpd asap (eg. "my" bugs would linger for months, or longer). The
> only point where lighttpd imho "shines", sort of, is easier launching
> of internal FastCGI servers.

  With low-traffic sites, there's not much difference between lighty and
nginx, both are quite stable and they can serve a lot of static content
without any CPU hit, even on a Soekris box.

  When it comes to the configuration, you can achieve the same results with
both, but indeed nginx configuration files are usually cleaner.

  The lighty development status is a bit messy (see the lighty blog), while
nginx development is clear and very active.

  Sure, lighty can start fastcgi servers, but on sites with medium traffic,
php-fpm blows lighty's fastcgi servers. Switching from lighty (1.5) to
nginx + php-fpm with GOTO for the Zend VM reduced the average time to serve
pages of a busy vbulletin board down to a factor of 4. I never went back to
lighty since.

  By the way, is anyone working on adding php-fpm to the php port? The patch
requires some tweaks in order to properly merge and compile, but it's really
worth it especially with nginx.

  


quoted text
> 
> Do you have any problems running nginx as a reverse proxy for Zope? We
> do it, and it gives us less trouble than the built-in Apache, I must
> say (even ignoring the system load).
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> --Toni++
> 

-- 
Frank Denis - j [at] pureftpd.org - http://00f.net - http://www.cotery.com