Comments on Benchmark: Apache2 vs. Lighttpd (Static HTML Files)
Benchmark: Apache2 vs. Lighttpd (Static HTML Files) This benchmark shows how Apache2 (version 2.2.3) and lighttpd (version 1.4.13) perform compared to each other when delivering a static HTML file (about 50KB in size). This benchmark was created with the help of ab (Apache benchmark) on a VMware vm (Debian Etch); if you try this yourself, your numbers might differ (depending on your hardware), but the tendency should be the same.
4 Comment(s)
Comments
The apache is from the latest verion of WHM, without any twisting, and the concurrency request is 500, it's also too large to most of common websites. It's not a performance benchmark bwteen apache and lighttpd, but may proved the following two things:
- The default configured apache that provided by hosting providers is not a good choice, some twisting is needed.
- *Seems* that lighttpd with PHP running in FastCGI mode is a little better than working with some addtional memory management tools.(maybe wrong, need some further testings)
Thanks
-joseph
I also did a benchmark among apache-2.63, lighttpd-1.4.19( PHP in FastCGI with eAccelerator), lighttpd-1.4.19( PHP in FastCGI without eAccelerator):
It's here: http://admon.org/uploads/doc/Apache-Lighttpd-with-FastCGI-Benchmark.html
Additionlly, three types of files are tested:
1, Dynamic PHP files with single command phpinfo();
2, Median size HTML file, 24KB
3, Large size JPG file, 188KB
Details is here
You seem to have a problem in your test since all apache2 fields are filled with "apr_socket error" And I frankly would not believe that it is Apache2 is guilty that your test failed.
You should use other tools for HTTP testing, 'ab' has a very limited scalability!
As workaround, you may start more 'ab' processes to reach higher workload, but using other tool anyway will give you a more realistic view...
Rgds,
-dim