View Single Post
Old 11th March 2011, 16:23
falko falko is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lüneburg, Germany
Posts: 41,701
Thanks: 1,900
Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,579 Posts

Originally Posted by talkingnews View Post
when I read about lighthttpd and nginx being good for having "tiny" footprints
That is true.

Originally Posted by talkingnews View Post
is it feasable to go down the road of excluding apache2 from serving certain subdirectorys, and force one or other of these "micro servers" (any preferences out there?) to serve the file, freeing up the big beast of apache to serve more "main" dynamic pages?
We use lighttpd for static content only, and it is very fast. In addition to that, if you serve your pages from two hosts (e.g. PHP/HTML from Apache and images, CSS, JAvascript from Lighttpd), it will make your pages load faster because browsers are configured to download only two files from one host in parallel. So if you use two hosts, browsers can download four files in parallel instead of just two if you just used one host (in fact, you can trick browsers by creating CNAME records that in fact point all to the same host, but that's another story).

But I can't say if it makes sense to use Lighttpd or nginx in your case because you don't serve static files (if I understood you right, your files are generated dynamically). You'd have to try it and see if it makes a difference.
Download the ISPConfig 3 Manual! | Check out the ISPConfig 3 Billing Module!


nginx-Webhosting: Timme Hosting | Follow me on:
Reply With Quote