Comments on: Apache 2.2 proxy and LightTPD http://www.idontplaydarts.com/2009/08/apache-proxy-and-lighttpd/ A blog about Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP and web application security Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:26:47 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: ninja cloak http://www.idontplaydarts.com/2009/08/apache-proxy-and-lighttpd/comment-page-1/#comment-17938 ninja cloak Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:19:11 +0000 http://www.idontplaydarts.com/?p=316#comment-17938 <strong>a great post for you to read...</strong> [..]awesome information avialable here, definitely should go read this, it's totally worth it[..]... a great post for you to read…

[..]awesome information avialable here, definitely should go read this, it’s totally worth it[..]…

]]> By: Phil http://www.idontplaydarts.com/2009/08/apache-proxy-and-lighttpd/comment-page-1/#comment-4362 Phil Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:09:43 +0000 http://www.idontplaydarts.com/?p=316#comment-4362 Your totally right - Ive just tested it and i got 85ms avg response time for apache vs 88ms for lighttpd (1000 requests with 100 connections serving 128kb of data). Perhaps the way forward would be to use lighttpd on the frontend and pass the php scripts via proxy to apache? I moved away from using lighttpd in the first place as the mod_php was much quicker than the fast-cgi php. Your totally right – Ive just tested it and i got 85ms avg response time for apache vs 88ms for lighttpd (1000 requests with 100 connections serving 128kb of data). Perhaps the way forward would be to use lighttpd on the frontend and pass the php scripts via proxy to apache?

I moved away from using lighttpd in the first place as the mod_php was much quicker than the fast-cgi php.

]]> By: php-trivandrum http://www.idontplaydarts.com/2009/08/apache-proxy-and-lighttpd/comment-page-1/#comment-4292 php-trivandrum Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:41:22 +0000 http://www.idontplaydarts.com/?p=316#comment-4292 This way for static files, both apache and lighttpd would be working.. means a static file request would use up one apache process which already has the overheads of mod_php and whatever mod_foo you have.. and in a nut shell.. the advantage of lighttpd over apache is lost. If fact you are abusing your hardware by using this setup. Also mod_rewrite in apache is a facility, and much more powerful methods can be achieved by mod_magnet and lua in lighttpd. I am no advocate of lighttpd. Would it not be better to have lighttpd listen on a different port on the external interface, and configure or author the web application such that all static files will be requested with that port in prefix? or if you have multiple ips on the server, use alias domains?. Even better would be just to use lighttpd only, and do the rewrites using magnet and lua, like on my hobby site running wordpress selectarticles.info. I got the reference from http://www.asteriosk.gr/blog/2009/02/19/installing-wp-super-cache-with-lighttpd/ This way for static files, both apache and lighttpd would be working.. means a static file request would use up one apache process which already has the overheads of mod_php and whatever mod_foo you have.. and in a nut shell.. the advantage of lighttpd over apache is lost. If fact you are abusing your hardware by using this setup.

Also mod_rewrite in apache is a facility, and much more powerful methods can be achieved by mod_magnet and lua in lighttpd. I am no advocate of lighttpd. Would it not be better to have lighttpd listen on a different port on the external interface, and configure or author the web application such that all static files will be requested with that port in prefix? or if you have multiple ips on the server, use alias domains?.

Even better would be just to use lighttpd only, and do the rewrites using magnet and lua, like on my hobby site running wordpress selectarticles.info. I got the reference from http://www.asteriosk.gr/blog/2009/02/19/installing-wp-super-cache-with-lighttpd/

]]>